>> Last paragraph of sec 5.2: " Verifiers SHOULD ignore failed signatures as >> though they were not present in the message." > > Is that inconsistent with the idea of only reporting signatures that > verified or those that TEMPFAILed? In that model, failed ones aren't > reported which is logically equivalent to them being ignored. Seems > like a fit to me.
I read that as inconsistent with reporting tempfails. Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
