Well, sure, but the question is whether that information is useful. We
could include the phase of the moon and the software author's middle
name, too.
Sure, if you want to be silly about it. But I was being serious.
I'm all in favor of standards communicating useful information, but if
you don't have an agreed algorithm for what to do with it, you're just
going to get more confusion, not better results.
DKIM and (Sender-ID and SPF while I'm at it) make recommendations about what to
do with a signature that fails to verify, but receivers are still at liberty to
do what they wish. The open source implementations I developed have options to
reject messages which fail verification even though the specs discourage that
activity because users demanded it.
Thus, insisting on a solution which has only one possible outcome at a receiver
is, to me, a non-starter.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html