Hector Santos:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> signed and invalid
> >> unsigned
> >
> > This distinction helps the bad guys/gals, and hurts the good guys/gals.
> >
>
> Thats an opinion and not one based on any engineering proof.
>
> The fact is, the value of DKIM will be realized on anonymous
> transactions when you don't know who is GOOD or BAD. When reputation
> is know, DKIM has less value.
>
> Think Experts Systems, Diagnostic Systems, Neuron and Fuzzy Boolean
> logic. By eliminating the all important critical mal-function state,
> the potential to learn is lost. The potential to add tolerance levels
> is lost. i.e, anyone with perpetual failure can eventfully be dealt
> with. And by failure, that means any condition that is not expected,
> whether its the l= or x= detected problem, or just plain hashing failure.
>
> In lieu of a standard DOMAIN Policy protocol as a major part of DKIM,
> it is far worst to ignore failure and promote it to unsigned state
> than to keep this state and pass it on to the next level - whatever
> that is.
>
> To me, this is the REAL BIS material that should be reevaluated,
> because to me, that is one of the barriers to adoption.
I rest my case.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
