[mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results issue #4 method=value values

[Tony Hansen]

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Tony Hansen wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> Works for me.

good

>> The other value definitions are different, but need to recognize that
>> not all authentication methods require policies. I'd suggest this
>> rewording:
>>     softfail
>>     The authentication method requires a policy to be accessed, but
>>     the policy does not require authentication of all messages from
>>     that domain, and the message failed the authentication tests
> 
> How about:
> 
>     The authentication method has either an explicit (i.e. published
>     by the sending domain) or implicit policy, but the policy being
>     used doesn't require successful authentication of all messages
>     from that domain, and the message failed the authentication tests.

works for me :-)

>>     neutral
>>     The authentication method requires a policy to be accessed, but
>>         the sending domain does not publish any sender authentication
>>     policy.
> 
> What if the method doesn't require a policy be accessed?
> 
> Actually in light of that question, maybe we don't need "neutral" at
> all.  For methods that have a policy, the verification attempt will
> produce one of the other results.  For those that don't have some
> queryable policy, "neutral" never happens.

Well, I've seen people who want to be able to say "X doesn't say
anything positive or negative for this message". That's the purpose of
neutral.

A related question is what value should be put in the headerspec for
failure situations? The identity has not been verified, so there's no
value to be put into the headerspec.

>>     temperror
>> [...]
> 
> Works for me.
> 
>>     permerror
>> [...]
> 
> Works for me.

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com