Steve Atkins wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:25 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
The assertion "discardable" will not resolve the declared problem
without also increasing the chances email with invalid signatures
of being discarded rather than rejected, or a DSN being generated,
even when the RFC 2821 FromMail is within the same domain.
The term is MAIL FROM (46 occurences in RFC 4408). IMO "suspicious"
was better than "discardable". The 2821bis terms for "discard" is
"drop", adding tons of caveats, without noting non-technical facts,
e.g., "dropping mail" can violate the "constitution" (or base law)
where I live, and that is not on the same level as ordinary crimes.
If you (not you personally) really must invent a new term instead
of sticking to "suspicious" or simply FAIL (for auth-headers), how
about using "unacceptable" ? This clearly indicates the receivers
already dropped the ball when they accepted any "unaccptable" mail.
That doesn't match the semantics of SSP.
"Discardable" does match the semantics of SSP.
Is the issue that you don't like the semantics SSP implies, or that
you'd prefer we were more circumspect about describing them?
They'd both be valid concerns, but they're quite different.
It has nothing to do with LIKE or DISLIKE.
It simply doesn't jive with SMTP design. The only entity in email
framework that can "safely" discard mail without raising technical and
"legal" eyebrows are end users.
If your ASP design it to remove all MTA handling considerations from the
DKIM/SSP mix, then it might make sense. But it doesn't fit with the
general case.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html