[ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
mike at mtcc.com
Fri Aug 4 17:26:49 PDT 2006
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>>If a signer wants to take that risk, isn't that for them to decide?
>>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,
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
useful that a mangler is likely to be able to do in any case.
More information about the ietf-dkim