--- Scott Kitterman <ietf-dkim(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
I guess that depends on exactly what we are talking about. Some
messages are pretty well inherently abusive while others it depends on
the context.
If it's a message that has some inherent characteristic that makes it
abusive (it's fradulent for example), then going to the source makes
perfect sense.
If it's a message that is not inherently abusive, but unwanted by a
particular recipient, then I think it's not so clear. Was the message
delivered to the recipient that didn't want it because of an action of
the sender, the receiver, or some third party? The signature tells you
nothing about that.
Sure. But none of your scenarios implicate a forwarding agent or suggest that
you'd want to take action against a forwarding agent.
My point is simple. All this discussion about forwarding agents signing is moot
as forwarding agents are rarely a party that a recipient will want to take
action against.
Ergo, signing by forwarding agents is not core to DKIM. Interesting, sure.
Core, no.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org