>>
>> You do anything you want to do. Perhaps more correctly, you do what
>> you're doing now. If there's no signature, it's not a DKIM message.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>
> Even if my policy states that it must be signed?
>
Whoa, whoa. Hang on. A signing policy is something that exists for
the *receiver*. If you get a message that has no signature, your
policy doesn't come into play. The *sender's* policy comes into play.
Stop Horse. This is lowest denominator of where we disagree. What's
the point of ~having~ a policy for my signature if the receiver is
just going to make up his own anyway. Can they? Sure they can... and I
can drive my car 140 mph on the freeway if I want. That is not the way
it is going to work. The sender, having gone through all the trouble
of creating a policy is going to expect and in my opinion, should have
every reason to expect, that that policy is going to be honored. I
think we can both agree that the receiver is going to do what they
want anyway, but these people are not free radicals, they are going to
do what your policy says to do and if we don't allow the language that
is going to be used in the policy to make it useful AND encompassing,
then we are going to seriously hamstring this whole thing.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html