Folks,
This has been discussed already. Are we going to benefit
from yet another round? Let's wait for reqs-00 and discuss
how it phrases things,
Thanks,
Stephen.
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The receiver decides how to interpret that information. It
must be very clear (a MUST) that I sign all is not the same
as instructing the receiver to do an automatic reject. That
is why I don't want to see anything that smacks of telling
the receiver what to do.
This message apparently contradicts itself. There's no such
"MUST" in "I sign all", and it's perfectly okay if receivers
decide to reject unsigned "I sign all" mails. If they decide
to accept it anyway it's most likely silently dropped later,
or bounced to innocent bystanders (1), and that would be bad.
Frank
(1): minus sound cases of bounces over SPF PASS Return-Paths.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html