Wietse Venema wrote:
_1.
I oppose the re-introduction of "suspicious", "fraudulent", etc.
Those are overly-specific interpretations of failures that will
more often than not have non-malicious causes.
That clearly hasn't been shown in the non-DKIM world, and you will
clearly be wrong in the DKIM world where there a new "SPECIAL" level of
x822 considerations. You either get it right or you don't.
The only thing that will be probably remain in doubt are Mail Integrity
issues as it is with similar digital signature email designs
But after the all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed, this is why
restrictive policies and protocol consistency checks are important
because they reduce the concerns regarding possible mail integrity
breakdowns.
Look, if you want this ASP model to be for just MUAs, why don't you just
say so. It so obvious this what is desired by the ASP group. If not,
that is not what the document is showing.
--
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