Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft
2010-05-26 11:47:17
This is a good example of a tradeoff that I think would benefit from some
agreed upon principles. If we agreed to the following two principles, I think
we'd all find a lot more common ground:
1) Authenticated email is optional, not required
2) We desire to fully enable the functionality of the authenticated email
ecosystem, but
3) We will do nothing with the authenticated email architecture that forces
non-participating email stakeholders harm/breakage/errors
If we agree to that then I believe it opens up some opportunities and clarifies
why we would have rough consensus on some of the major issues that have been
under debate for a few weeks now.
For example: In the past I have argued that the receivers should simply not
bounce DKIM+ADSP=discardable messages back to the MLM. But that position
assumes the receiver is participating in the authN email ecosystem. The
principles listed above would lead me to change that position.
Thoughts?
On May 26, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On May 26, 2010, at 7:00 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Steve Atkins
<steve(_at_)wordtothewise(_dot_)com> wrote:
On May 24, 2010, at 6:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
Since ADSP causes problems for innocent bystanders, I think it's
reasonable to decline A's mail in the first place. This is doubly
true since the ADSP RFC rather specifically says that you shouldn't
mark a domain discardable if its users send mail to lists.
It causes no problems at all to innocent bystanders in that case - the
recipient at domain B is a willing participant who has chosen both
to pay attention to ADSP and to respond to it by rejecting, rather than
discarding, mails labeled "discardable".
Perhaps I missed something, but if domain B is rejecting email from the list
Authored by A, then won't that cause a list member at domain B to be removed
from the list as well? I think that is what John meant by innocent
bystander. Most MLM remove subscribers after repeated bounces. I don't know
if they are smart enough to look into why the message bounced.
That's exactly the issue, and not a theoretical one.
However, domain B is not an innocent bystander, as they intentionally
configured their mail system to reject mail it shouldn't, and the recipients
at domain B support that decision, on some level.
The mailing list operator is the one caught in the middle between two domains
that have made bad decisions, so is an innocent bystander, but the level of
inconvenience to them is pretty small, relative to the usual overhead of
running a mailing list.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, J.D. Falk
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft,
Brett McDowell <=
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Roland Turner
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Roland Turner
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback, SM
- Re: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback, Murray S. Kucherawy
|
|
|