[ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes

[Steve Atkins]

On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:29 AM, Hector Santos wrote:

> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>> Surely, t=y will be used in one of two scenarios:
>> 1. Someone is intending to roll out DKIM, and is trying it out. He  
>> is not sure whether he has implemented it right, so it may fail.
>> But in that case there will be no SSP record, or if there is one  
>> it will say "we do not sign (yet)".
>> 2. An existing DKIM user is rolling out a new algorithm. As  
>> before, he may get it wrong and the signatures may fail.
>
> That might be GOOD GUY scenarios.  How about the EXPLOITED scenarios?
>
>> With those two provisos, the existing rule, to ignore any failed  
>> t=y signature (as though there had been no signature) makes  
>> perfectly good sense.
>
> hahahahahaha. :-)  Sorry. I just don't see how its not seen that  
> what you think is GOOD can also be BAD. :-)

That you do not understand that a DKIM message only has two states -  
validly signed or not signed - and continue to use that ignorance to  
waste time in this forum isn't a laughing matter.

Please behave professionally and constructively or be quiet and let  
others work.

Cheers,
   Steve