On 05/27/2010 07:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael
Thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:22 AM
To: Roland Turner
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: [ietf-dkim] bad mail blowback
So the question is, in my mind, should the receiver just silently
discard
it which breaks reliability but allows the MLM to do nothing special,
or
should the receiver bounce/5xx it back. To my mind, if the MLM is going
to
do something as drastic kick the receiving user, it ought to at least
be
open to a 5xx explanation that it's the mail in question that's the
problem
instead of blindly giving the user X number of 5xx's before they're
declared
a nuisance and kicked.
This is something the lists BCP could discuss. Perhaps something like:
bounces with enhanced status codes of 5.7.1 should not be counted against the
recipient as they are done for message-specific policy reasons and not for
something more general.
(I might have the "5.7.1" wrong, but you get the idea.)
Considering that this is really a 5822 level problem, I have my doubts that a
DKIM/ADSP
targeted document is the right place to bury this kind of advice. And I'm also
skeptical
that we have the right set of eyes looking at this in this working group
because this is
certainly a very old topic and it would be stupid of us to come out with advice
that goes
against or without the consent of the much larger smtp community.
On the other hand, if the larger email community already has a normative or BCP
solution
to this which we can just restate, then that's great. (which might be what
you're getting at).
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html