[ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements

[Hector Santos]

Dave Crocker wrote:
> old news, but i'm trying to catch up.
> 
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>> While I strongly agree with this interpretation of dkim-base,
>> some have argued that there are three states
>> in dkim-base: signature verification suceeds, signature
>> verification fails and "no signature".
> 
> Since -base explicitly direct a failure as being equivalent to no 
> signature, that leaves a total of 2 states:
> 
> 1. GoodSig
> 2. NoSig

Unfortunately, it will probably not have that effect when it all said 
and done - "Cry Wolf Syndrome."

     FAILURE SIGNATURE  ==> NOSIG

has no logical basis for it.

In short, when systems begin to see an avalanche of DKIM failures, a 
pattern of NOSIGS will not be ignored.

---
HLS