Douglas Otis wrote:
"FAIL" says little about an underlying cause.
In the context of SSP "FAIL" would mean whatever the SSP spec. says
it means. Like SPF FAIL means what RFC 4408 says, it's very simple
to show that this could be nobody's fault at all - "clueless user"
arranged 1123 5.3.6(a) forwarding to an 821-emulating RFC 4408 hop
is no "failure", normal users aren't supposed to know such details.
Besides it still works if the next hop uses "reject" as a "receiver
policy", arguably that could also work for any "SSP FAIL", or the
proverbial "odd IP on Tuesdays FAIL".
Traditional forwarding is anyway doomed since 1123 was published,
it will only get worse with the transition to "IPv6 only" senders.
A breakdown of causes with respect to actual "exceptions" would
help clarify the different causes that _will_ legitimately exist.
Is it "legit" if a "resending MUA" breaks Alice's DKIM signature ?
What if Alice signed that her mail had no Resent-* header fields,
is that "legit" ? Bob can't get it right in the latter case, he'd
be forced to <eai> make another plan </eai>.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html