-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:18 AM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft
Or are you saying that it shouldn't produce a bounce/5xx and just
silently discard it?
Exactly.
If they would otherwise deliver the mail, and the reason they decided
not to was because of a combination of an ADSP-discardable record and
the lack of a DKIM signature then they should silently discard the
mail.
I don't think we can talk about "right" or "wrong" actions based on DKIM and
ADSP because the language of RFC5617 is so soft with respect to the actual
message disposition.
The BCP can only provide advice about what has been observed to work, or what
the WG believes will work.
And I think we need to be very specific about "silently discard" if that's the
practice we want to espouse. That's not something RFC5321 really suggests
either. RFC5617 doesn't define what "discard" means, leaving the receiver open
to choose to deliver to the spam folder, reply 250 but send it to the
bitbucket, or reply 5xy, or even 4xy.
For that matter, the same goes for "all".
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html