[ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain

[Scott Kitterman]

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:04:00 -0000 "Charles Lindsey" <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk> 
wrote:

>But users might not share you opinion of that. If the user's MUA has no  
>part to play in the matter, then the only options for his upstream is  
>"drop" or "not drop". Some users might be happy to devolve that  
>responsiblity to their upstreams. I would not, unless I had considered  
>their policy and agreed to go along with it (as I do actually; I have set  
>a Spamassassin score of 4+ which my provider devnulls for me; below that,  
>I inspect the mail myself).

I didn't say 'drop', I said 'reject'.

Dropping mail impacts the reliability of e-mail as there is no knowing if a 
message was delivered or not.  Rejecting at the border MTA leaves 
responsibility with the sending MTA.  Legitmate MTAs will let the 
originator know.  

Scott K