At 07:49 27-05-10, Michael Thomas wrote:
Considering that this is really a 5822 level problem, I have my
doubts that a DKIM/ADSP
5322. :-)
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.
There's a discussion of local policy in Section 6.3 of RFC
4871. I'll emphasize the first sentence of that section:
"It is beyond the scope of this specification to describe what actions
a verifier system should make."
In terms of implementation, we might be doing some rejects at the
SMTP level. I refrained from suggesting having that as part of the
default knobs because of the odd cases.
I am wary about going beyond the RFC 5322 level for some of the
reasons you stated above and because DKIM does not operate at that level.
At 07:53 27-05-10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I think it's appropriate since ADSP is creating the problem (or in
your view, extending the existing problem).
Maybe, but this is the kind of thing where some people will take the
simplistic answer and ignore the caveats.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html