On 10/27/22 16:04, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Brotman, Alex <alex_brot...@comcast.com> said:
How will we handle the ever-changing definition of "weak"?
...
There is no reason for DMARC to say anything at all about either
flavor of weak signature.
+1.
I was concerned we might be heading toward our own definition of "weak"
when I replied. Doug seems to have clarified that it's (still) a purely
receiver-side determination.
We should have language about keeping current with future updates to the
DKIM base like RFC8301, but more than that and we'll be on an update
treadmill.
--S.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
