[mail-vet-discuss] "none" as a possible result string?

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday 21 January 2008 20:28, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> While I'm waiting for a formal security review of the draft to come in,
> before IESG handoff, I have a discussion item to put out there.
>
> Someone has asked for "none" to be added as a possible result for an
> authentication method.  An example use of this might be a message not
> signed with DKIM, and a DKIM verification agent that wants to be very
> explicit that it processed the message and that the message was unsigned.
> One could argue though that this is redundant to "neutral", which we
> already have, or that the implementor would simply omit to add the header
> altogether in those cases.
>
> In any event, I thought I'd offer it up for discussion while there's still
> a chance to make the change if someone is strongly in favour of such.
>
SPF defines None as a distinct result from Neutral, and so I think it should 
be included.

Scott K