I would like to propose a small change in semantics to the current
text in section 6.1, last sentence of 2nd paragraph:
Therefore, a verifier SHOULD NOT treat a message that has one or more
bad signatures and no good signatures differently from a message with
no signature at all.
Since there is a reference to a policy-based treatment of the message
in section 6:
A verifying MTA MAY implement a policy with respect to unverifiable
mail, regardless of whether or not it applies the verification header
field to signed messages.
the text in 6.1 should be expanded or changed to indicate the possible
consideration other that what is stated, i.e. an augmented security
DKIM wrapper such as ADSP or other future policy-based DKIM security
wrapper is being applied.
I propose the changed text (or anything else one deems better):
Therefore, in lieu of some policy-based valid signature requirement
as outlined in section 6.0, a verifier SHOULD NOT treat a message
that has one or more bad signatures and no good signatures differently
from a message with no signature at all.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
