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

[Stephen Farrell]

Frank,

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?

Thanks,
Stephen.

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.
> 
>  [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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>