On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote: > Perhaps I do not understand the process of verification according to > dkim-milter. As far as I thought dkim-milter would add something like: > > X-DKIM-Authentication-Results: none > > if there is no signature is present. Am I wrong here?
Yes; as I mentioned in an earlier message, logging "no signature" and adding a header to every unsigned message just creates a lot of logging and I/O that's not really of interest. As a matter of fact, a bug was opened against dkim-milter in March of this year complaining that we were adding the header and the logging that you're requesting, so I removed it then. (See SourceForge bug #1605766, fixed in v0.6.1.) > Is it possible to configure dkim-milter to work that way? Not at present. If you like, open a feature request on SourceForge and I'll try to get it into a future version. However, I'm left wondering why your filtering software can't treat the absence of an Authentication-Results: header as an indication that the message was unsigned. > Does dkim-milter only add a "X-DKIM-Authentication-Results" header if a > signature existed? It adds that header: a) if the message was signed; or b) if the message was not signed and the sending domain's policy claims to sign everything. The second point here is a bit poorly-defined because DKIM doesn't have a sender signing policy yet. dkim-milter just implements what DomainKeys did for now. -MSK ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
