Hector Santos wrote:
Nevertheless, this breakdown should be adjusted to recognize that an
invalid signature is equivalent to no signature per the specification.
It did. Read the message again.
More to the point Doug. The reason I showed it separate was to
illustrate there is a high confidence validation (non-repudiation) when
there a true no signature state versus the condition where the state is
artificially altered from a failed signature to non signature. The
later introduces less confidence where the former yields full
confidence. When you fold it, you have false positives. In short, it
makes the ALL and STRICT policies less reliable. It weakens the policy.
Does that make sense?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html