[mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM signatures
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Wed Mar 24 12:17:12 PDT 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mail-vet-discuss-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:mail-vet-discuss-
> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:46 AM
> To: mail-vet-discuss at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM
> As an alternative, the verifier can ignore the failed signature as
> though it were not present in the message --as specified. Then, it
> would just report a more concise “dkim=pass header.d=example.com”.
To which signature is that result reporting if the verifier simply ignored one of them, and both of them had "d=example.com"?
If for example the signer included one signature with "l=" and one without, the verifier or A-R consumer might want to prefer one over the other, but it won't know what action to take if it can't tell which signature is the one that passed.
More information about the mail-vet-discuss