Mark Delany wrote:
If I choose to deliver unsigned mail that purports to be from a domain that says
it signs everything, but I mark it up with flashing lights that say "spoofed" do
you want that to be a protocol violation? What about my choosing to send it to
my sysadmin for special handling for spoofed mail? What about...
Well sure, but how about treating it the same as an IP checksum
failure?
What this analogy is missing is that the checksum is being grafted on
after the
fact such communication that used to get through stops happening in
erratic and
unexplainable ways if the receiver just throws damaged messages away. Worse,
is that parts of the infrastructure do this kind of damage and think it
is not only
a feature, but that it's their god-given right. If DKIM were part of RFC822
like checksums were in IP this would be a different situation, but it
missed that
by about 25 years.
Mike
You may divert it to some port for analysis - especially in the early
days - but what sort of stack delivers a known damaged packet to the
end point when the transmitter/protocol says to discard known damaged
packets?
DKIM+SSP is defining "damaged".
Mark.
_______________________________________________
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