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