[mail-vet-discuss] Reworked section 2 (for -13)

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday 12 March 2008 13:06:02 J D Falk wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > When I went back and read it again, I did notice one additional item
> > I'd suggest changing.  In the RFC 4408 definition of Neutral, it also
> > says:
> > "A "Neutral" result MUST be treated exactly like the "None"
> > result; the distinction exists only for informational purposes."
> >
> > That's actually (IIRC) the only reciever policy MUST in the entire RFC
> > and I think it's worth repeating here.
>
> Given that many use cases for the Authentication-Results header are also
> only for informational purposes, we should ensure that "neutral" and
> "none" are still differentiated.  This spec doesn't (and MUST NOT)
> dictate actions to be taken based on the information.
>
> I suspect we're mostly agreeing, just wanted to make sure.
>
Mostly.  I agree this spec shouldn't dictate actions, but I think it's 
appropriate to carry forward ones that are included in the references 
definition of the result for completeness and accuracy.

Scott K