At 06:43 25-02-2008, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Without intending to put words in John's mouth, I think what he meant is
that there is the risk of some legitimate email being lost if a receiver
respects a discardable assertion. In that respect, sending domains need
to consider carefully the implications of making a discardable
assertion. Something along the lines of "careful what you ask for
because you just might get it".
The receiver might read it as "sender doesn't care whether the mail
gets delivered".
The other factor is that receiving domains are going to consider
complaints received by their users for undelivered email in their
calculation of whether to respect a discardable assertion. We all know
that there are quite a few domains that have implemented all manner of
things incorrectly, poorly or with a misunderstanding of the
consequences of their actions. Once there is more experience with
SSP/Discardable/etc on the part of senders and receivers, I expect this
to be less of a problem - or should I say "I hope".
John Levine made a case for when discardable is useful. As he
doesn't even want rejections, the receiver will also have to decide what to do:
1. If the key cannot be retrieved in DNS
2. On failures for DKIM checks (excluding hash verification)
3. MTA failures
At the moment, these are treated as a temporary failure. To avoid
any blockback, the receiver might as well drop all mail from that domain.
The receiver domain is likely to choose to balance the benefit from
listening to discardable assertions and the increase in support calls
that might result from any particular domains discardable assertion.
Yes.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html