Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

["william(at)elan.net" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Damon wrote:

>>  4.7.  DSAP Tag: t=y
>> 
>>   The t=y tag is optional.  If defined, the domain is currently testing
>>   DKIM.  Verifiers SHOULD NOT treat testers any different from
>>   production mode signers.  It SHOULD NOT be used as a way to bypass a
>>   failed signature classification policies.  However, verifiers SHOULD
>>   track testers for over extended usage of test signatures and MAY
>>   consider using the results to provide feedback to the domain.
>> 
>> And other words, the testing flag will not be tolerated as well.
>> 
>
> Whew Hector,
>
> I see what you are getting at but... have any idea how many domains I
> am currently tracking for reputation?! How long would I have to keep
> that data?
> The bots would cause me to get google size boxes alone.
> Reminds me of the time I suggested a "auto-expiring" DNS tag. That
> went over like a lead balloon.
>
> Is there another way you could do this?

The above text should have had "MAY" in place of "SHOULD", i.e.

    The t=y tag is optional.  If defined, the domain is currently testing
    DKIM.  Verifiers SHOULD NOT treat testers any different from
    production mode signers. It SHOULD NOT be used as a way to bypass
    a failed signature classification policies. Verifiers MAY use
    this flag when tracking usage of test signatures and consider
    using the results to provide feedback to the domain owner.

In other words if program you have already has capability to track
usage you should than use 't' flag as part of that data. If you do
not have capbility to track usage or do not want to use it, then
you would not care about it.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[e-mail]
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html