RFC5451 includes "policy" specifically for reasons like this, so that's a possibility.
I don't know about DMARC reporting for this purpose, but DKIM reporting (RFC6651) might be helpful if not. -MSK On 9/13/12 12:04 PM, "Zachary Harris" <[email protected]> wrote: >* DMARC noob; excuse any naivety; did at least search the mail list >archives and site FAQ for my keywords before posting here. > > I'm currently working on getting senders with weak DKIM keys to >upgrade, and getting verifiers that "pass" DKIM that has been signed >with a weak key to be more strict. (Say you get a valid DKIM signature >based on a 384-bit public key (there are such things out there!, and >they are fun to factor on an ordinary laptop in less than 24 hours); >what rfc5451 result would you give it? "policy"? How about 512 or 768 >bits?) Jim Fenton mentioned to me the idea that weak DKIM keys could be >something that verifiers report back to senders as part of DMARC >feedback. Doable? > >-Zach > >_______________________________________________ >dmarc-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > >NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well >terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
