On Jun 3, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Amir Herzberg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Brett McDowell
<brett(_dot_)mcdowell(_at_)me(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
A = sender of message from an ADSP=discardable domain but the message was not
DKIM signed
B = sender of message from an ADSP=discardable domain and the message was
DKIM signed
C = the MLM who is a participating MLM in the authenticated email ecosystem
D = receiver of email from the MLM who is a participating receiver (DKIM/ADSP
inbound)
Note: this scenario takes place after this IETF DKIM WG standardizes the new
header I mentioned above.
In this scenario C will report to D that the message from A was not signed on
inbound and that the message from B was.
Shouldn't C discard such message instead of sending it to D?
Good question. I don't have a strong opinion either way (yet).
The fact that MLM's deliver those messages today enables what we've seen on
this list, i.e. at least the message is in subscribers' spam folders which
enables them to configure their MUA's to deliver such things in the future.
But I've seen several posts to this list suggesting life is better if such
messages simply never reach the subscribers' inbox. To be honest, I don't
recall the motivation for that position. IIRC, the original motivation was to
avoid auto-unsubscriptions from the MLM, but I think we've concluded that MTA's
shouldn't bounce those rejected messages back to the MLM anyway.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html