Dave Crocker wrote: > >>> If the Sender Signing Practices record for the domain does not exist >>> but the domain does exist, Verifier systems MUST assume that some >>> messages from this domain are not signed and the message MUST NOT be >>> considered Suspicious. >> >> I think the above text should be labeled #5, since it specifies a >> condition >> different from #4?
This list is not a procedure; it is describing the possible SSP check results and the circumstances that lead to each. But I'll agree that it's a little bit strange to introduce "four possible results" when there are only two: Suspicious and not Suspicious. This area does need some rework. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
