-----Original Message-----
From: Alessandro Vesely [mailto:vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:46 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: mail-vet-discuss(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM
signatures
To which signature is that result reporting if the verifier simply
ignored one of them, and both of them had "d=example.com"?
In case both passed, should the verifier report the same result twice?
I would argue yes. If your upstream mail provider (think cloud-based mail
filtering, software-as-a-service, etc.) does all your verifying for you, I
would say it will want to report all information to you and let you provide
your own further filtering based on local policy. In that regard, that
provider would be doing you a disservice by giving you needlessly ambiguous
results (one "dkim=pass" doesn’t tell you which one passed, and your local
policy might actually need to know).
This consideration assumes that A-R consumers agree with the verifier
policy, though. Are there consumers who need more insight than that
provided by their trusted verifiers?
DKIM in general doesn't presuppose that the verifier and the receiver are the
same agent. I don't believe we should here either.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html