On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:52:19 +0100, John R. Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Last paragraph of sec 5.2: " Verifiers SHOULD ignore failed signatures as
though they were not present in the message."
Actually, that does not seem quite right. It is assessors who should do
that. Verifiers are explicitly asked to report "PERMFAIL" in that case,
which is not quite the same thing as "ignoring".
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html