Dave wrote: > Unless I've misread the suggested changes, they appear to be > word-smithing, rather than raising substantive issues.
Yep, that's why I put 'em all into a single issue. I don't feel strongly enough about word-smithing to disagree with Frank's points, but since he asked: > [old] > | Note that a failed signature causes the message to be > treated in the > | same manner as one that is unsigned. > [new] > ? Note that a failed signature [will in most cases cause] the message > ? to be treated in the same manner as one that is unsigned. > > Is that a conflict of "education" vs. "truth" ? The [new] text is > certainly compatible with ID.kucherawy-sender-auth-header If the question you're asking is "is this signature valid?", then the difference between no signature and a bad signature is generally uninteresting except when debugging stuff. But if the question you're asking is "is this message trustworthy?", the difference (coupled with additional info, such as ADSP and reputation) may turn out to be extremely important. I say "may" because we don't have a lot of real world experience yet. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
