On Oct 14, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
If a valid signature is absent, then indeed the listadmin should
discard
it (maybe even with 'ALL'). But the case of most interest is when the
message arrives with a valid signature. In that case, the listadmin
should
do his best to forward it, but what does he do if the list policy is
to
munge? That is what we are discussing.
So he adds Authentication-Results and signs it. At least then the
final
recipient can see that and decide to ignore the failure of the
original
signature ("DISCARDABLE" or not), assuming he trusts the listadmin.
The whole point of "discardable" is that the final recipient should not
see it in that case. It's for things like transactional mail, bank
statements,
that sort of thing - which should never go to mailing lists anyway as
the sender believes it should be sent directly to the final recipient,
or
not at all.
(If you disagree with my characterization of the sort of email that
might
use discardable that's fine, but lets be specific about the operational
details, like what classes of email we're talking about. Discussing it
solely in the abstract protects the discussion from common sense.)
A more interesting case to consider is acm.org style forwarders,
where the forwarder is, in many ways, the final destination, and where
the address at the forwarder is "owned" by the final recipient, and
where they will likely ask for transactional mail of the sort that
senders might consider discardable be sent.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html