Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)

[Dave Crocker]

+1.

Wietse Venema wrote:
> Charles Lindsey:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:21:55 -0000, Hector Santos <hsantos at santronics.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> There are three basic outcomes with a message:
>>>
>>>     VALID SIGNATURE
>>>     INVALID SIGNATURE
>>>     NO SIGNATURE
>> No, there are four basic outcomes with a message. You omitted
>>
>>        UNVERIFIABLE SIGNATURE
>>
>> which just happens to be the one that this thread is all about.
> 
> On a friendly internet with only cooperating parties, this might
> make sense.  But the world has changed. With today's internet it
> would be a fundamental mistake to make more distinctions than:
> 
>     the signature was verified
>     other
> 
> If the verifier gives different treatments to different types of
> "other", then the bad guys will exploit the verifier's behavior.
> 
> The solution to the problem is not to complicate the protocol, but
> to avoid the mistake of giving different treatments to different
> types of "other".
> 
> 	Wietse
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> 

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net