[ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Fri Dec 1 11:03:42 PST 2006
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:04:00 -0000 "Charles Lindsey" <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk>
>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
More information about the ietf-dkim