[ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent

[Dave Crocker]

Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>> Whatever SSP does (and the more interesting case is a "Bob" who
>>>> is completely DKIM-unaware), the mail should not be rejected
>>>> by the next receiver(s) ...

>> This line of discusses re-enters the model in which we believe the 
>> sender is telling the receiver how to process in-coming mail.  That 
>> is, essentially, intruding on the SMTP specification and the rather 
>> wide range of individual receive-side operational policies.
>>
>> I (again) suggest that we do not want to do that.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm not doing that. Requirement #12 sez:
> 
> 12.  Given the considerations in scenario 4, the protocol MUST NOT
>        provide a mechanism which impugns the mere existence of third
>        party signatures in a message.  A corollary of this requirement
>        is that the protocol MUST NOT in any way tie practices of first
>        party signers with third party signers.


I do not see how this language pertains to directives about rejecting or 
not rejecting a message.  That is, I think there is confusion about 
dictating the processing of a signature with the acceptance or rejection 
of a message.

The former is within our purview.  The latter is not.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net