[ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error

[Hector Santos]

Douglas Otis wrote:

> Only that you want resources wasted on invalid DKIM signatures?

Who said that? I would appreciate you stop making up stuff and blurting 
it out as if that is what I said.

> TPA-SSP was to permit a safe and reasonable means to "authorize" other 
> domains.  

We are not talking about TPA here.

>>     [X] Promote Bad Signatures to No Signatures (default)
>>         [X] For ALL and STRICT policies only.
> 
> You mean demote bad signatures.  

No. I said promote. BAD to NONE is a promotion. Not a demotion.

Please stop twisting what I said.

Under the default SSP policy (UNKNOWN or OPTIONAL signing), a bad 
signature promotion to NONE will validate the message as it never 
occurred.  The same will occur when a domain has a ALL|STRICT policy but 
the verifier does not support SSP.  Of course, opinion may vary, to me, 
I stand by the idea that is not a demotion of state, but rather a 
promotion.

-- 
Sincerely

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