msk wrote:
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.
I think it's a good idea. This header is (as I see it) primarily
intended for post-processing of upstream results, so there can be an
important difference between verdicts of "processed, no result" and "not
processed at all" (denoted by a complete lack of the header.)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html