mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Last Call: draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header (Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status) to Proposed Standard

2008-12-02 17:43:47
At 14:08 02-12-2008, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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:

I understand what you are suggesting in (a).  I could not find a 
replacement for the normative words.

    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.

Agreed.

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.

I think that it is plenty too.

Regards,
-sm 

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>