MX dot was (Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues

[Jon Callas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Damon wrote:

>> No, this doesn't change the semantics of DKIM-BASE.  The DKIM-Base
>> "ignore failures" philosophy is basically "an invalid signature is
>> exactly the same as no signature at all:  no better and no  
>> worse."  What
>> we're talking about is how the missing/invalid signature case is  
>> handled.
>>
>> -Jim
>
> The document already covers this case. It assumes that anyone doing so
> must be a bad actor. Says nothing about good players doing it on
> purpose :-)
>

Yes, sorta....

If I have a valid public key for which there is no private key, it's  
not malformed. As a matter of fact, you can't tell that I burned the  
private key.

It's perfectly well-formed, it's just incapable of executing  
successfully.

	Jon


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.1
Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFGaRr7sTedWZOD3gYRAtuuAKCPgv1Ex+GWxJoBvrXOKcESFYbUBQCgkwEA
x/Z9UQa7oUCvXkO74bWOFa8=
=1FeS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----