On Feb 27, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Eric Allman wrote:
Hector,
Dropping the "never send mail" statement doesn't mean you can't
still express the concept. Say "this domain always signs email"
and then have no selectors --- all mail that claims to originate
from that domain will have an invalid signature.
There may however be a good argument that there is a difference
between a message with a bad signature and a message that "cannot
exist" in the first place. That might make retaining the concept
worthwhile from an expressive standpoint, although there are some
feelings (not mine) that such a declaration is out of scope.
I'm pretty sure that I'd be willing to drop a piece of mail from a
source that says "I don't send mail" out of hand. I definitely
wouldn't
do that for an unsigned message with "I sign everything" because it
might have been damaged in transit. So the semantics are not the same.
If you believe the semantics are not the same, then what does the
statement
"I sign everything" actually mean to a recipient when associated with
unsigned
mail?
So the scope argument is definitely the better question. One other
thing
to consider is that the volume of traffic this corresponds to is
pretty
small, so we're probably already wasted too many cycles arguing
about it :)
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html