On 9/14/10 2:36 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 13 September 2010 21:18:41 -0400 "John R.
Levine"<johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
The final version said
if a message arrives without a valid Author Domain Signature due to
modification in transit, submission via a path without access to a
signing key, or any other reason, the domain encourages the
recipient(s)
to discard it.
I think it's a reasonable interpretation to say that if you expect your
list software might break the signature, you're doing the sender a favor
by pre-discarding it since that's what the recipients should do anyway.
Absolutely not. The condition doesn't apply when you receive the message,
so the signer is NOT encouraging you to discard it, and the general rules
apply: you should deliver the message or notify the sender (or the sending
MTA).
It may be that the message can be bounced, with a non delivery
notification. For example, if the return path matches the content of a
signed header, and they're both in the domain of the signer, then you're
probably not issuing collateral spam. If you are issuing collateral spam in
this instance, then the fault probably lies with the controller of the
sender domain (for allowing intra-domain spoofing).
If the MLM owner knowingly breaks a signature, and either discards the
message or forwards it into a system that is likely to discard it, and do
not notify the sender, then the forwarder must be responsible for any harm
done. They really should reject such messages.
Agree.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html