-----Original Message-----
From: Alessandro Vesely [mailto:vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 3:01 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-01 review request
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.)
Any feelings about this from the rest of the working group? We're possibly in
a position to make some editorial remarks here about how "all" and
"discardable" should be treated differently, at least by MLMs, if we feel
that's prudent.
Personally I'm comfortable with the present text. I haven't see anyone that
treats "all" and "discardable" the same so the danger is limited; OpenDKIM for
example merely flags a failed "all" in the RFC5451 field while "discardable" is
subject to being bounced or dropped. But since all of ADSP is at verifier
discretion, there's some merit to this idea. The risk of course is the
possibility of later extensions to ADSP that might get created, so maybe
changing the advice from being specifically about "discardable" to something
more general covering any restrictive policy is better.
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.
Ah right, so what it should say is "unsigned externally-applied" instead. I
agree there.
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.
I mention "appropriate wording", but suggesting use of the string "ADSP"
specifically works for me as well.
Thanks,
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html