Frank Ellermann wrote:
If it's very relevant for DKIM it should be added to the list
of MASS input documents. For SPF we were forced to stick to
the clumsy SPF-Received:, because Authentication-Results: was
not ready for prime time (aka Bruce's famous reviews). Bye
I believe that it is quite relevant to DKIM but we haven't
discussed it very much because of time constraints getting
-base out. I for one would like to see a detailed review of
it because I've been having some questions of mapping AR
result codes to DKIM verification and/or binding especially
in corner cases.
As an example, should you give a "fail" for a broken signature?
In all other respects, a broken signature is indistinguishable
from a missing signature, so "fail" seems to assert more than
is there, but "neutral" looks at first blush very odd.
Mike