It helps automation in that you know to always expect it - rather than the way the headers come now where the headers that may appear are not standard
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 2:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-00.txt On 30/Jun/11 19:35, Hilda Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > [...]For example, "dkim=none" means the message had no signature. > > IMHO, the simplest specification is that the feedback-report part > contains just the triggering A-Rs, whether or not they are also > present in the message/rfc822 part of the report. > > for automation it would be useful for the headers to be standard - so > if dkim was not checked perhaps dkim="" would be preferable to > dkim=none - to your point above but I think its worth including to try > to standardize the format I don't see how having dkim="" benefits automation. Its meaning could be inferred from the absence of any dkim methodspec. Using empty result values yields Authentication-Results header fields different from those that verifiers SHOULD produce, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5451#section-2.4 _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
