[ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?

[Stephen Farrell]

Folks,

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,

Thanks,
Stephen.

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.
> 
> Frank
> 
> (1): minus sound cases of bounces over SPF PASS Return-Paths.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>