[ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent
dhc at dcrocker.net
Thu Sep 21 10:25:19 PDT 2006
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.
More information about the ietf-dkim