Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: 6.1 treatment of bad signature

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:01:38 -0400

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