On 29/Jul/10 13:52, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
You MUST NOT [RFC2119] use this thread for debating the technical or
political points of ADSP.
Right, also because the document does not dig deeply into ADSP matter.
In particular, I think most of the issues discussed for
"discardable" hold unchanged for "all", and some of them even for TPA.
I would s/"discardable"/non-default/; for example
Furthermore, authors whose ADSP is published as "discardable" are
advised not to send mail to MLMs as it is likely to be rejected by
ADSP-aware recipients.
would become
Furthermore, authors whose domains publish a non-default ADSP
record are advised not to send mail to MLMs as it may be rejected
or dropped for policy reasons by ADSP-aware recipients.
(My tongue cripples on "non-unknown", but then I'm not an English
speaker.)
I have another couple of points, since I'm at it. On 26/Jul/10 14:02,
you wrote:
----- [5.9]
The second paragraph,
Receivers are advised to ignore all unsigned Authentication-Results
header fields.
is obviously formally wrong.
Why?
Because signing isn't but one of the five points that RFC 5451
proposes for recognizing authentic header fields. In particular, an
A-R written by a border MTA upstream of the receiver may be unsigned
yet trusted.
I think the following paragraph --554 replies-- is much better. But
how about grepping /554 .*ADSP/ from the log files? Consider appending
six words like so:
SMTP servers doing so are also advised to use appropriate wording
in the text portion of the reply, possibly using the term "ADSP"
explicitly.
The final suggestion I have is discussable. Hence I send it as a
separate message, according to the spirit of the prohibition quoted
above. "Yet another alternative mailing list approach" may deserve
being mentioned in the I-D, in case the WG find it's worth.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html