Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:19 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: iane(_at_)sussex(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk; John R. Levine; Daniel Black; ietf-
dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
receiving side
They won't honour ADSP "dkim=discardable" records posted by others.
So is it that they won't honor it as the sole criteria, or that they
won't pay any attention to it at all? I can understand the former,
but the later would be pretty weird since it's a pretty large hint
that something's really wrong.
I really don't want to be seen as speaking for Google based on two or three
sentences I exchanged with someone that works there.
So let me answer this way: My own inference from the conversation is that
they wouldn't discard/reject mail based on ADSP without a legal agreement to
do so, but it might be used as a hint to move such mail into a spam folder.
But there are already rejecting mail with forged DKIM signatures.
The last time I tried, replaying a DKIM signed message I grabbed from
here, it never arrived. Done again by REMOVING the DKIM-signature and
the message came in. I recall repeating this a few times to duplicate
what I was seeing.
If this is true today, then your conversation was probable high-end
and not actually about what is being done. Google is indeed
discarding invalid DKIM messages. No, it didn't go into a spam folder.
Further, as it was noted, no one in their right engineering mind, not
GOOGLE, not even us, can take POLICY serious when the author is doing
everything to sabotage it and telling people not to suppose it.
--
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html