-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Charles
Lindsey
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:03 AM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-03
You can define the architecture so that the discarding is done by (or
close to) the verifier, or that it is done by a separate agent (the
"receiver"). I don't mind either way, but you need to be consistent.
Currently, the wording of 5.10 suggests that you are using the second
model (the verifier leaves it alone and the receiver looks at the
verifification results in the A-R header and decides whether or not to
actually discard).
The change you have made in response to Dave is an improvement (it solves
my immediate problem), but it still leaves in doubt which of the two
models you are using.
I'll review it. Really, though, rejection in some form (bounce, drop,
spam-folder) can take place at either location, so maybe it's best to fall back
to something more generic and say "a module can reject" instead of naming one
or the other specifically.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html