On Jan 22, 2008 12:30 AM, Scott Kitterman
<mail-vet-discuss(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Monday 21 January 2008 20:28, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
While I'm waiting for a formal security review of the draft to come in,
before IESG handoff, I have a discussion item to put out there.
Someone has asked for "none" to be added as a possible result for an
authentication method. An example use of this might be a message not
signed with DKIM, and a DKIM verification agent that wants to be very
explicit that it processed the message and that the message was unsigned.
One could argue though that this is redundant to "neutral", which we
already have, or that the implementor would simply omit to add the header
altogether in those cases.
In any event, I thought I'd offer it up for discussion while there's still
a chance to make the change if someone is strongly in favour of such.
SPF defines None as a distinct result from Neutral, and so I think it should
be included.
Scott K
I believe that a while ago (I don't have the time to find the thread)
I argued for the NONE.
I still want to see it.
+1
Regards,
Damon
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html