-----Original Message-----
From: mail-vet-discuss-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:mail-vet-discuss-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:28 AM
To: mail-vet-discuss(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] More A-R bits...
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...
No, it hasn't been put into a draft yet.
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.
This could be done in a separate registration draft as well if you don't want
to wait for the output of a working group. I don't think it's appropriate
right now because of the low adoption of it (you're the first case I've heard
of that's using it!).
* Ditto for ADSP.
RFC5617 registered ADSP.
* "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?
I think this is probably an overloading of the purpose of this header field.
I'd rather see a new one created, or an internal method for making that address
available to clients (perhaps via IMAP CAPABILITIES and/or the POP equivalent).
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html