[ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes

[Hector Santos]

Steve Atkins wrote:
> 
> 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.

I think I have been extremely professional and constructive.  Whether 
you choose and others CHOOSE to ignore that input is another matter all 
together.

I think the CONCERNS are very VITAL in the discussions about DKIM 
implementation and SSP.

It is WELL understood DKIM has two states.  The FAILED t=y STATE is a 
PROBLEM under a PERPETUAL USAGE MODE.

Why is that NOT a valid concern and why do you choose to IGNORE it?

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com