On 06/May/11 20:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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). Verifiers are explicitly instructed
to return PERMFAIL/TEMPFAIL), and "returning" something is evidently
inconsistent with "ignoring" it.
+1
Since this is already somewhat mushy, might I suggest:
Verifiers MAY decline to report, and identity assessors SHOULD ignore, ...
I wouldn't delve into what identity assessors should do, since that is
outside the scope of the DKIM Signing specification. The wording in
section 3.9 already conveys that "ignoring" is being used as a synonym
for "returning PERMFAIL". I'd make such meaning more explicit rather
than introducing yet a new phrase to allude to the same behavior.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html