> -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas
Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Perhaps some people are confusing verification and presentation.
> I really don't understand all of this hand wringing about True Verification
> vs. Mutant Verification Intent on Taking Over Earth. The protocol document
> needs to be precise about what it takes for a properly written verifier to
> verify a properly signed message. That's it. Trying to make normative any or
> all of the ways _not_ to verify a signature is not only a waste of time, it's
> a hopeless task.
In line with Wietse, we need to distinguish between two, basic activities. One
is verification. I would call the other "interpretation", rather than
"presentation" because it is a function of the filtering agent -- and can result
in a variety of handling outcomes -- rather than just presentation to the user.
The fundamental point is that dkim-base defines how to create a signature and
how to validate a signature. Anything done after the basic, interoperable,
yes/no validation is outside the scope of -base.
Calling it "policy" is a good way of distinguishing it from the scope of -base
which is intended to be purely mechanism.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to