Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On 5/21/09 4:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> I think the point is that you can't make assertions of responsibility
>> for the information beyond l=.
>
> Eliot,
>
> But with respect to "assertions" about a message, DKIM only has
> valid-vs-unsigned.
Unfortunately, that was a policy decision and it is conflictive with
the realistic technical values of a malfunctioning operation. There
are three technical states software provides:
signed and valid
signed and invalid
unsigned
To eliminate one is a policy decision.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
