-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 11:44 AM
To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for
draft-levine-dbr-
00(fwd)
Help me out here John, where exactly is that "silently drop"
section? I
see the discarding part but the "drop silently" part seems to be a
bit
silent.
Sheesh, Mike. Discard is an ordinary English word which I used in its
ordinary English sense. I suppose there might be people who say
"Attention! I have thrown a used coffee cup into the wastebasket!"
each
time they do so, but I hope I don't know any of them.
We seem to agree that discard means "throw away". Where we seem to
disagree is that I take it as face value and recognize that RFC5617 says
nothing beyond that. You are reading between the lines or the
super-secret lemon juice portion of the spec to determine that any
discarding must be silent and that the Receiver MUST NOT do anything
else beyond throwing it away silently.
Ooh, "we're sending you this useless notification instead of what
might
have been spam". Just when we thought that had been stamped out.
So you have decided to join the group that claims DKIM and ADSP are
about fighting spam rather than being an authentication mechanism.
If by fighting spam, you mean not sending mail which is certain to be
useless and unwanted, I guess I plead guilty.
Now I'm really getting confused John. On the one hand you argue that
there are hordes of panting implementers anxiously awaiting the
opportunity to publish borked (a technical term) ADSP records (compared
to their mailing practices) thus creating a situation where their very
important mail will be discarded by any receiver that follows the
instructions of those implementers. (If the mail was not important then
there would not be many - if any - complaints to receivers and this
discussion would be moot.)
On the other hand you are now arguing that a notification to the
intended recipient that there was a problem based on the published
requirements of the sending domain is certain to be useless and
unwanted.
Most interesting. I believe this is what's known as cognitive
dissonance. Either the mail is important and there will be complaints
(to receivers) or it is not important and nobody will care on the
receiving end if it gets discarded (silently).
If we can turn our minds back a decade or so, you may recall that some
spam filters replaced a suspect message with an announcement saying
"so
and so sent you spam, which we caught, and we're sending you this
message
instead." We all got a zillion of them. Did you ever do anything
with
any of those messages other than delete them? I certainly didn't.
If you don't trust a filtering technique to work, don't use it. But
for
heaven sakes, don't excuse broken spam filters by sending more spam.
So ADSP is a broken spam filter? Why would you present yourself as the
co-author of a broken spam filter?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html