mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM signatures

2010-03-24 14:18:02
-----Original Message-----
From: mail-vet-discuss-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:mail-vet-discuss-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:46 AM
To: mail-vet-discuss(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM
signatures

As an alternative, the verifier can ignore the failed signature as
though it were not present in the message --as specified. Then, it
would just report a more concise “dkim=pass header.d=example.com”.

To which signature is that result reporting if the verifier simply ignored one 
of them, and both of them had "d=example.com"?

If for example the signer included one signature with "l=" and one without, the 
verifier or A-R consumer might want to prefer one over the other, but it won't 
know what action to take if it can't tell which signature is the one that 
passed.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>