SM wrote:
I suggest:
INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTATION NOTE:
The DKIM specification advises that if a message fails
verification, it should be
treated as an unsigned message. A verifier may elect to report
"neutral" instead of
"fail" to discourage needlessly harsh reactions from downstream
agents such as message
rejection based on a "fail" result.
I like the approach, but a) suggest avoiding use of normative words, like
'may',
and b) suggest the second sentence be even less directive, for example:
The DKIM specification advises that if a message fails verification, it
should be treated as an unsigned message. A report of "fail" permits the
receiver of the report to decide how to handle the failure. A report of
"neutral" pre-empts that choice.
I've suggested purely objective language that lays out the mechanical
implication of the two choices. Frankly, I think that that is plenty. If
there
is consensus to say more, I suppose an additional sentence could be included:
Hence a report of neutral ensures that the message will be treated as if
it
had not been signed.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html