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

[J D Falk]

msk wrote:

> 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.

I think it's a good idea.  This header is (as I see it) primarily
intended for post-processing of upstream results, so there can be an
important difference between verdicts of "processed, no result" and "not
processed at all" (denoted by a complete lack of the header.)