Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Jim Fenton wrote:
>> - If broken signatures are seen as worse than the lack of a
>> signature, it will serve as a disincentive to signing
>> messages: potential signers might not want to do so if they
>> risk having their messages downgraded if they pass through
>> an MTA that breaks the signature (or through a mailing list
>> that does so).
> Nicely put.
That's IMO the usual "you can't have your cake and eat it too".
A sender promising that all his mails are signed is OBVIOUSLY
talking about _valid_ signatures, and seriously wants that all
mails with no or invalid signatures are downgraded to /dev/null.
That's the one and only point of his signing policy. Almost
exactly the same situation as SPF FAIL: reject, reject, reject.
If he doesn't want that effect he should not publish a "closed"
signing policy.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
