[mail-vet-discuss] results should be method specific

[Dotzero]

On 2/29/08, Mike Markley <mike at markley.org> wrote:
>
> Continuing the thought from above, one could argue that a missing
> signature + a sign-all policy = a fail.
>
> It also seems to me, at least, that some way of communicating whether
> the broken signature came from a domain or selector in testing mode is
> pretty helpful in determining just how strongly any downstream filters
> should respond to the failure.
>

This is why I liked t=y;  The downside of that is you introduce the
same issue dogging SPF......people will sign with t-y; and never
remove it unless clubbed over the head.