-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alessandro
Vesely
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:22 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt>
(DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
My reading of SM's comments is for replacing "Best Current Practices",
not normative language in general (but in particular, where it is
redundant.) I consider his thoughts in accord with what another John
noted:
[...]
If the document status changes to Informational, which is what I expect, I
don't think we can use normative language at all.
3.6.2 applies to relays, not recipients. A relay might try DKIM
validation and ADSP evaluation, but that's not the model this
document discusses.
Yes, my understanding of that SMTP snippet is that it concerns
responses to RCPT TO:<particular address>, while DKIM and ADSP can
only be evaluated after <CRLF>.<CRLF>. (In this respect, mentioning
"user unknown" in the MLM spec may cause some confusion in readers not
familiar with SMTP.)
I don't think it refers to any specific phase of SMTP; could be post-DATA (per
DKIM), could be RCPT for some other method.
But to be conformant, I suppose 550 5.7.0 would be appropriate.
Conformant to what?
RFC5321, as cited.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html