On 2/17/23 5:02 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:35 AM Scott Kitterman <ietf-d...@kitterman.com> wrote:Currently RFC 6376 says, "Signatures MAY be considered invalid". I think the practical effect as described in protocol terms would be to change the MAY to SHOULD under X conditions and SHOULD NOT under !X conditions. Not that I'd expect to see this appear in a protocol document (maybe some kind of applicability statement).Beyond this SHOULD, I think we need to consider whether the caller needs to be told specifically when a failure occurs for this reason. Right now an implementation might return just a PERMFAIL without noting that it's because of "x=" versus the signature failing for some other reason. Should the caller be given this extra detail to enhance the decision tree, or will this just complicate things?
Why would it permfail? Does it permfail email without a signature too? Absent p=reject, there is nothing wrong with unsigned email. Mike
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
