Eric Allman wrote:
Back in the days of DKIM-base, we started with considering what
happens with broken signatures. We also believed that it would be
not uncommon for a legitimate message to get its signature broken
in flight.
Actually, we (or at least, I) started thinking about unsigned messages
first, since it seemed pretty obvious that senders that wanted to sign
everything would want recipients to be able to make use of that
information. I didn't originate this concept: it came from DK (RFC 4870).
It was also part of the original IIM as well. The original IIM
considered both lack of valid first party signature and no
signatures at all as identical. 4870 is seemingly a little vague
on this point. In any case, this is hardly some new thing snuck
in while nobody was looking. The concepts have been out there
for 4 years now.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html