On Fri 15/Jul/2022 13:23:20 +0200 Laura Atkins wrote:
On 15 Jul 2022, at 12:02, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
On Wed 13/Jul/2022 23:51:31 +0200 John Levine wrote:
I went through and looked at all of the "must" and "should", in both upper and
lower case.
A lot of the lower case "must" was saying that one thing is the same as another
using tortured syntax so I rewrote most of them to be shorter and clearer.
This change is wrong:
However, a DKIM signature bearing a value of "d=com" would never allow
- an "in alignment" result, as "com" should be identified as a PSD
How is a valid DKIM signature of d=com going to happen?
I found several d=;, which also shouldn't happen. I discovered them
because my filter choked on NULL domain. (Had I interpreted d=; as
the root, ".", perhaps I'd never have noticed it.)
The next version I'll try and log the "kind" of identifiers. I'd
guess some (faked) signing PSDs will appear.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
