[ietf-dkim] Issue 1579: ADSP result set, New issue: ADSP status codes

[Frank Ellermann]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
 
> The suggestion (I think) is to define three possible
> ADSP results (open/closed/locked).

Yeah, my part in that was mostly focussed on "there is
no worse name than 'discradable', therefore 'locked' 
might be better".

> ssp-04 doesn't do that - it lists 4 possible results,
> but doesn't give those specific names.

 [3.3]
| All messages from this domain are signed and discardable.

Even if you stick to "discardable" that is certainly not
what you want.  Maybe [...] "are either signed or" [...}

 [4.2.1]
|  adsp-dkim-tag = %x64.6b.69.6d *FWS "=" *FWS
|                     ("unknown" / "all" / "discardable")

<digression>
 Never, under no circumstances, allow more than one FWS,
 a single optional [FWS] is bad enough in DNS.  More than
 one introduces the miracles of "apparently empty lines"
 consisting entirely of "semantically significant white
 space".  

 Submitted as 4871 erratum - normally I'd say "editorial",
 but the other reported DKIM ABNF nits say "technical".
</digression>

ssp-04 still says "discardable", and maybe it passes IETF
review for status "experimental".  But spp-04 clearly says
"standards track", and does not mention Resent-* anywhere.

For receivers rejecting suspicious mails the draft should
note the relevant SMTP reply and extended error code with
a reference to RFC 5248.  

 Frank