On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org>wrote:
> "Should't have been signed by us" clearly can't mean that someone > stole the private key or otherwise hacked things, so you're saying, > "Our processes might not be set up right, and we might be signing crap > sent by bad guys. Give us a break until we get things straight." > Right. > But more to the point, it seems that this isn't a specific "we're > testing our system" issue, but a separate issue related to reputation: > "Do not use signatures made with this key as input to your evaluation > of our reputation." It would seem best to propose a new tag, in a > DKIM extension, for that purpose, rather than re-using and overloading > t=. > Since RFC6376 ascribes almost no real meaning to "t=", what's the harm with revising its definition, perhaps with an "Updates" draft? Otherwise, I'm fine with that path if others are. -MSK
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
