mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] More A-R bits...

2010-04-02 04:09:17
On 24/Mar/10 21:10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
[...] and is partly an offshoot from a larger issue that will probably need 
its own working group;

Did you ever mention what that larger issue consists of? If you did, I 
missed it...

I'd annotate a few additional minor issues here, which may eventually 
be addressed in that WG you mention, or in a marf recharter:

* DKIM-Reputation. I currently get

   Authentication-Results: wmail.tana.it;
     dkim=pass header(_dot_)i=(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org;
     x-dkim-rep=neutral (-100 from al.dkim-reputation.org)
                                   header.d=mipassoc.org

Standardizing this method will allow to remove the "x-". Presumably, 
"al.dkim-reputation.org" should live in a "host=" sub-field rather 
than inside a comment.

* Ditto for ADSP.

* "Report" and "Reported" as IMAP keywords for requesting to send an 
abuse report and, respectively, flagging that as done --OT here.

* "Report-To" (or "Reportable", or "Abuse-Report-To") as an additional 
Authentication-Result method whereby the MTA responsible for receiving 
the message conveys that, based on other methods and any additional 
knowledge internal to the MTA, that host will accept an ARF for this 
message. The syntax may be something like

   Authentication-Results: resp-mta.example.com;
     report-to: abuse;

to mean <abuse(_at_)resp-mta(_dot_)example(_dot_)com>, which would be assumed 
by 
default in case resp-mta.example.com is an SMTP host (MX/A/AAAA).
Variations?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>