On Jan 12, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Mark Martinec <mark.martinec...@ijs.si> wrote:
>> On January 12, 2015 8:06:00 AM EST, Mark Martinec >>> It would be wrong to assign score to short keys. > > Kevin A. McGrail wrote: >> Actually the rfc specifies that keys 512 to 2048 bits must be verified >> so I think there is a grey area and there is this long-lived key >> caveat as well. > >> I think if we can make a rule that fires on <1024 bits it's would be >> good. > > Fine with me. > >> The score may not be much but it could be helpful. > > A message with a valid signature but a short DKIM key cannot be > scored more severely than an unsigned message, or a message with > an invalid signature - none these are currently assigned > any score. > Seems the score for key <1024 needs to oppose the DKIM score so the end result is zero.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
