Dave wrote:
Unless I've misread the suggested changes, they appear to be
word-smithing, rather than raising substantive issues.
Yep, that's why I put 'em all into a single issue.
I don't feel strongly enough about word-smithing to disagree with
Frank's points, but since he asked:
[old]
| Note that a failed signature causes the message to be
treated in the
| same manner as one that is unsigned.
[new]
? Note that a failed signature [will in most cases cause] the message
? to be treated in the same manner as one that is unsigned.
Is that a conflict of "education" vs. "truth" ? The [new] text is
certainly compatible with ID.kucherawy-sender-auth-header
If the question you're asking is "is this signature valid?", then the
difference between no signature and a bad signature is generally
uninteresting except when debugging stuff.
But if the question you're asking is "is this message trustworthy?", the
difference (coupled with additional info, such as ADSP and reputation)
may turn out to be extremely important. I say "may" because we don't
have a lot of real world experience yet.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html