ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent

2006-09-21 10:39:26


Whatever SSP does (and the more interesting case is a "Bob" who
is completely DKIM-unaware), the mail should not be rejected
by the next receiver(s) no matter what Alice's SSP says.  Bob
is perfectly entitled to resend a mail he got using the header
fields specified in STD 11 or 2822.

Where "reject" is of course the least problematic outcome, but
"annotate as suspicious", the weasel words for "delete", would
be wrong.
I agree, and I'd appreciate some help on how to make this clear. The
corresponding requirement is actually in the form of a negative in
requirement #12.

Maybe I just need some forward references in the scenarios to the
fundamental corresponding requirements?


This line of discusses re-enters the model in which we believe the sender is telling the receiver how to process in-coming mail. That is, essentially, intruding on the SMTP specification and the rather wide range of individual receive-side operational policies.

I (again) suggest that we do not want to do that.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html