Douglas Otis wrote:
We should stick to the known SOFTFAIL and (hard) FAIL terms instead
of inventing new terms, and copy the known SOFTFAIL caveats (= use
it for testing, not forever).
CLOSED has _nothing_ to do with testing or rote placement into junk
folders, for example. CLOSED asserts messages emitted by the Author
Domain are conversational and should be initially signed.
Conversational messages are prone to exchanges where signatures may
become invalid. Just as closed doors may not bar access, neither will
CLOSED assertions. This does not mean CLOSED assertions are without
merit. CLOSED assertions still raise the bar for acceptance by
offering information related to initial conditions. SOFTFAIL suggests
moderate handling for unauthorized messages. SOFTFAIL and CLOSED are
significantly different concepts, where clarity is reduced calling
this SOFTFAIL.
For various reasons I think that "you" (the ADSP proponents) would be
better off by adopting known terms, and while you're at it store them
where folks will find them (in SPF records, working with wildcards if
necessary), but apparently "you" insist on inventing new terms and new
discovery methods.
Based on that we apparently agree on replacing "nxdomain" by a broader
concept "nomailfqdn", and "we" (you + me) also agree on replacing the
result names "unknown" / "all" / "discardable" by better terms.
IMO "open" / "closed" / "locked" are better. The spec. should mention
which ESMTP status codes fit when unsigned "closed" or "locked" mails
are rejected, following the RFC.hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry rules.
JFTR, that is of course only relevant for receivers deciding to reject
unsigned closed / locked mails, not for receivers doing something else.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html