----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
To: "Mark Delany" <MarkD+dkim(_at_)yahoo-inc(_dot_)com>
That seems like something rather hard to enforce.
In some cases the message will be verified at the MUA where rejection
is impractical. When the message is rejected, will an error code
clarify the reason? Should the sender reattempt delivery after
removing offending text? It seems prudent to avoid disruptions
caused by extraneous rejections caused by _valid_ uses of a mechanism
in the DKIM spec.
I'm increasing getting concern that the DKIM-BASE specs is being watered
down to a PURE ACCEPTION technology at the SMTP level leaving all decision
for MUA's to make - the cat's meow for both good and bad spammers, including
the DMA.
We need to be very careful that this doesn't further contribute to what I
called "Mail Pollution."
There seems to be a "battle" of where DKIM is going to be implemented.
Doug, for what it is worth, DKIM is not going to succeed as a MUA verifier
solution only. SMTP software will going to play a vital role here in
controlling mail pollution using the new level of information available to
them, one that is beyond legacy operations.
So I hope I'm not reading you wrong here and that you want ALL SMTP software
to pass all failures to MUAs. I can't speak for others, but it "ain't"
going to happen in our software. If we can detect DKIM failures, will be
rejected by default allowing the operators to decide for themselves. Again,
think Mail Pollution.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html