[ietf-dkim] Issue 1579: ADSP result set, New issue: ADSP status codes
stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Sat Jul 5 07:37:34 PDT 2008
I'm not clear if you're saying that this remains an open
issue or not or whether you're raising new issues or what.
Can you clarify?
Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 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.
> | 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" [...}
> | adsp-dkim-tag = %x64.6b.69.6d *FWS "=" *FWS
> | ("unknown" / "all" / "discardable")
> 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
> Submitted as 4871 erratum - normally I'd say "editorial",
> but the other reported DKIM ABNF nits say "technical".
> 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.
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim