Early drafts of what turned into ADSP used the word "strict" which I
changed to "discardable" to make it clear that if you set this flag,
you're saying the mail is unusually unimportant, to the extent that if
there's doubt about its legitimacy, just throw it away.
At the time, "strict" was meant to be the equivalent of DK's "-", wasn't it?
IMHO, "discardable" has been an addition rather than a substitution.
Hey, I wrote it, I know what I did. I changed strict to discardable to
better describe what it means, and try to discourage the wrong impression
that it means mail is important.
that, and assuming that "discardable means discardable", as you wrote[1], is
it correct to _reject_ on _all_?
We don't offer any suggested handling for dkim=all. "Well, it might be a
forgery, or it might have a signature broken in transit, or they might be
mistaken and not really sign all their mail. Your guess is as good as
mine."
Hear, hear. Does such criterion also apply to, say, courtesy forwarding?
If the courtesy forward recodes the message and breaks the signature, as
your example does, I suppose so.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html