On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:39:03 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
Right before Section 6:
+ Verifiers SHOULD ignore those signatures that produce a PERMFAIL
+ result (see Section 7.1), acting as though they were not present in
+ the message. ...
s/Verifiers SHOULD ignore/Identity assessors SHOULD ignore/
(and probably in other places too). Veriffiers are explicitly instructed
to return PERMFAIL/TEMPFAIL), and "returning" something is evidently
inconsistent with "ignoring" it.
--
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