On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:33 AM Brotman, Alex <Alex_Brotman= 40comcast....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> How will we handle the ever-changing definition of "weak"? > > -- > Alex Brotman > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > Comcast > > This is why I don't believe "weak" should be included in any normative manner. I'm not sure that it should be defined for reporting. I think a better approach is some verbiage about weak signatures as a problem. Perhaps for reporting something like "Local Policy: weak signature" but leave it up to the validator to deal with the weak signature decision outside of DMARC. It's really a DKIM issue. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
