[ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements
hsantos at santronics.com
Sat Dec 9 16:10:23 PST 2006
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.
More information about the ietf-dkim