On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 7:25 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> I don't think you're talking about the same thing I am. I'm talking about > the definition provided in Section 8.6 of RFC 6376. There's at least > anecdotal evidence that this is a problem these days, and if that bullet > can be referenced using a common term, I think it should. > > (And let's try to be constructive here.) > > I'm saying that I don't think it is well understood how to differentiate > the benign from the non-benign. That is very relevant. Potter Stewart's "I > know it when I see it" is not a very good test for internet standards. > Heuristics are generally a bad idea for standards. > I think the thing being proposed is a way to detect that a replay (as defined ibid) is happening, not whether the replay is benign. There's no value judgement in the current text that I can see. More specifically, I would posit that "this signature was not intended for use with this recipient" is no more dispositive than "this signature failed entirely". -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
