[ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?
stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Tue Aug 8 07:55:43 PDT 2006
This has been discussed already. Are we going to benefit
from yet another round? Let's wait for reqs-00 and discuss
how it phrases things,
Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> The receiver decides how to interpret that information. It
>> must be very clear (a MUST) that I sign all is not the same
>> as instructing the receiver to do an automatic reject. That
>> is why I don't want to see anything that smacks of telling
>> the receiver what to do.
> This message apparently contradicts itself. There's no such
> "MUST" in "I sign all", and it's perfectly okay if receivers
> decide to reject unsigned "I sign all" mails. If they decide
> to accept it anyway it's most likely silently dropped later,
> or bounced to innocent bystanders (1), and that would be bad.
> (1): minus sound cases of bounces over SPF PASS Return-Paths.
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim