ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements

2006-11-07 19:11:10
Thank you for pulling that together.  I think that was an excellent writeup.

One point I'd like to pull the thread on is the word drop.  Rather that drop, 
I think it would be better to say reject.  I'm taking the word drop to mean 
delete here.

I think that deleting messages that fail an SSP test is not good for the 
overall reliability of the e-mail ecosphere as there is no indication to 
either the sender or the receiver (at the user level) that a message has not 
been delivered.  This raises uncertainty.  If messages are rejected (SMTP 550 
at the end of DATA), then legitimate senders will be notified of the failure 
and can take action to rectify the problem without the backscatter risk 
associated with accept then bounce.

I think that rejecting messages meets the goal that is stated here without 
adding risk or uncertainty.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html