> >Section 3.4.5 second to last paragraph "choose to reject" -> > >"choose to ignore signatures" [this one isn't a nit] > > I'm not sure we have consensus on dropping the "reject" language --- > I think Mark had some concerns. I'll add wording about ignoring the > signature though.
My only concern is to ensure we're not prescriptive to a verifier. Anywhere we say "reject" probably should be changed to "treat as unsigned" as long as there is no implication one way or the other as to what a verifier does with that "is verified" or "is not verified" knowledge. Similarly, there should be no "accept" language. In general, verifier actions are out of scope. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
