+1 to John notes here. Afrer reviewing the drafts, I think it hits all
the key points, but there should be a summary somewhere.
I have one comment though to highlight
John Levine wrote:
Section 5.9, third pp: if a message fails "discardable" the receiver
should discard it, not reject it. This avoids the bouncing off the
list problem, and you're just following orders -- they said it was
discardable, after all.
If the MLM follows the other guidelines which amounts to prohibiting
restrictive ADSP domains from subscribing and submitting list mail,
then the MLM would not dependent on remote receivers behaving in a
SMTP level rejection mode since any rejection at this point would not
be related to ADSP issue but a typical member delivery issue as it is
today.
This is important in my view because MTAs direction has been more and
more toward using dynamic SMTP level rejections.
An MTA that has shifted towards a DATA rejection would now have to
have DKIM/ADSP exception to issue a false positive acceptance for the
purpose of discard - that means tricky SOFTWARE/INTEGRATION change.
So if the MLM simply follow the guideline to prohibit strict ADSP
domain mail from entering its list environment, the downlink
non-delivery ADSP problems would not be an issue anymore - no
dependency on how downlinks are behaving and have no control over.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html