In <20060909140903(_dot_)E8B49BC0BC(_at_)spike(_dot_)porcupine(_dot_)org>
wietse(_at_)porcupine(_dot_)org (Wietse Venema) writes:
wayne:
1) I always sign, but I also know that I send email through relays
that will break the signature. If you, as a receiver, reject
legitimate email due to broken/missing signatures, it is your fault
and I'll place the blame on you.
This is an assertion about recipient actions and their consequences.
There is a mistaken perception that that senders have control over
how recipients handle email (whether spoofed or not). A sensible
sender signing policy is limited to assertions about sender actions.
You are mistaken that I have such a perception. To be honest, I can't
think of anyone on this list that has that perception, although JohnL,
DaveC and you seem to like to bring up this red herring.
This policy does not say senders have any control over how receivers
handle email, receivers are free to reject or accept the email for any
reason they want. This is an assertion about what the sender does and
does not do. In this case, the assertion is that the sender does not
restrict their users to sending stuff to mailing lists and such.
-wayne
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html