[ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

[Michael Thomas]

Arvel Hathcock wrote:

>>If a signer wants to take that risk, isn't that for them to decide?
>>    
>>
>
>Precisely.
>
>  
>
>>Also, if the usual strategy of a verifier is to bounce (or be
>>encouraged to bounce) the offending email, a "I sign all" sender will
>>almost always know about delivery failures of originally signed
>>traffic and be able to act accordingly. 
>>    
>>

So if I set a policy of "I sign all", and a mailing list mangles it, 
what exactly
is the mailing list receiving the bounce going to do? Blackhole it? Bounce
the user off the list? Anything useful whatsoever?

>
>Right.  I don't see a big reason to worry with this at all.  There are all sorts of reasons SMTP might bounce a message back as it is.
>  
>

That makes the assumption that it gets bounced at all. Lots of things just
silently discard things they don't like these days.  Not that there's 
anything
useful that a mangler is likely to be able to do in any case.

       Mike