Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-05-09 Thread Charles Lindsey
On Sat, 07 May 2011 13:50:41 +0100, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote: On 06/May/11 20:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Verifiers SHOULD ignore those signatures that produce a PERMFAIL result (see Section 7.1), acting as though they were not present in the message. ...

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-05-07 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On 06/May/11 20:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Verifiers SHOULD ignore those signatures that produce a PERMFAIL result (see Section 7.1), acting as though they were not present in the message. ... s/Verifiers SHOULD ignore/Identity assessors SHOULD ignore/ (and probably in other

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-05-06 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
-Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:08 PM To: Charles Lindsey Cc: DKIM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements +   Verifiers SHOULD ignore those signatures

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-05-05 Thread Barry Leiba
+   Verifiers SHOULD ignore those signatures that produce a PERMFAIL +   result (see Section 7.1), acting as though they were not present in +   the message.  ... s/Verifiers SHOULD ignore/Identity assessors SHOULD ignore/ (and probably in other places too). Veriffiers are explicitly

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-05-02 Thread Charles Lindsey
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:39:03 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote: Right before Section 6: + Verifiers SHOULD ignore those signatures that produce a PERMFAIL + result (see Section 7.1), acting as though they were not present in + the message. ... s/Verifiers SHOULD

[ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-04-29 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
Here's a more comprehensive proposal for an output summary (excuse the diff output): +4.9. Output Requirements + + For each signature that verifies successfully or produces a TEMPFAIL + result, the output of a DKIM verifier module MUST include the set of: + + o The domain name, taken

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-04-29 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On 29/Apr/11 19:39, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Here’s a more comprehensive proposal for an output summary (excuse the “diff” output): +4.9. Output Requirements + + For each signature that verifies successfully or produces a TEMPFAIL + result, the output of a DKIM verifier module MUST

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-04-29 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
-Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:03 PM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements How about mentioning ignored signatures

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-04-29 Thread MH Michael Hammer (5304)
-Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:18 PM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements -Original Message- From: ietf

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output requirements

2011-04-29 Thread J.D. Falk
On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: -Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:03 PM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output