Sonneveld, Rolf wrote: > Let's keep it clear: a broken signature is to be ignored > (base DKIM spec). But removing signatures without a good reason > is wrong.
A good reason is to lower the confusion of an unknown assessment world, especially when the LAST SIGNER is taking responsibility and is the presumably the only "vounch-able" entity but the unknown non-standard reputation filtering engines (RFE) advocates. What is your reason for keeping a broken signature? Do you have an RFE that can utilize this information? Look, systems that support policy are in a better position to filter these faults in the system. But in lieu of a policy standard, I can probably see where the MLM or any resigner blindly stamps its DNA ignoring any previous single or collection of signatures. But we have a WG Policy concept in place. One way for the MLM to lower the confusion is to honor it first. After that, it can really do what it whats because it is all now in an indeterminate state that can only be possibly handled by special signing arrangements. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
