----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Eric Allman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: dkim-base-01 nits and semi-nits
> "Treat as unsigned" seems a little ambiguous when there might be > multiple signatures. It might be interpreted as "treat the message as > though it is completely unsigned" as opposed to "consider this signature > invalid" which I think is your intent. Jim, I hope not. I understand the proposed pseudo procedure to handling multiple signatures, looking for one that "works,", but it completely fascinates me to think how failure state information can be ignored. How can one treat, view or interpret a failure signature as "unsigned" when in fact, it was signed? Continuing processing is one thing, but treated it as it never happen? I fail to see this logic. Even if not rejected, but logged or flagged, that is not treated it as it was unsigned. If I was a domain signer, and I was responsible for this mail with my reputation on the line, I would want the verifier to prune all failures because it was not what I expected and I don't want potentially harmful mail, which is probably isn't mind to begin with, reaching the intended end-user. And even if the verifier is not going to reject, I certainly do not want it to ignore the fact there was a failure with mail purported to be from domain. So what or how should the verifier do? What is expected of them by domain signers? I can only see this work if the verifiers gets help from the domain itself having an email policy that tells verifiers how to handle failures. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
