On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 12:10 PM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > I'm using the language of the DKIM RFC, so "PERMFAIL" here refers to evaluation of the signature, not of the message. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
