On 06/May/11 20:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>>> Verifiers SHOULD ignore those signatures that produce a PERMFAIL >>>> result (see Section 7.1), acting as though they were not present >>>> in the message. ... >>> >>> s/Verifiers SHOULD ignore/Identity assessors SHOULD ignore/ >>> >>> (and probably in other places too). Verifiers are explicitly instructed >>> to return PERMFAIL/TEMPFAIL), and "returning" something is evidently >>> inconsistent with "ignoring" it. >> >> +1 > > Since this is already somewhat mushy, might I suggest: > > Verifiers MAY decline to report, and identity assessors SHOULD ignore, ...
I wouldn't delve into what identity assessors should do, since that is outside the scope of the DKIM Signing specification. The wording in section 3.9 already conveys that "ignoring" is being used as a synonym for "returning PERMFAIL". I'd make such meaning more explicit rather than introducing yet a new phrase to allude to the same behavior. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
