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

[Damon]

On Jan 22, 2008 12:30 AM, Scott Kitterman
<mail-vet-discuss at kitterman.com> wrote:
> 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
>

I believe that a while ago (I don't have the time to find the thread)
I argued for the NONE.
I still want to see it.
+1

Regards,
Damon