[ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?

[Steve Atkins]

On Feb 27, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

> Eric Allman wrote:
>> Hector,
>> Dropping the "never send mail" statement doesn't mean you can't  
>> still express the concept.  Say "this domain always signs email"  
>> and then have no selectors --- all mail that claims to originate  
>> from that domain will have an invalid signature.
>> There may however be a good argument that there is a difference  
>> between a message with a bad signature and a message that "cannot  
>> exist" in the first place.  That might make retaining the concept  
>> worthwhile from an expressive standpoint, although there are some  
>> feelings (not mine) that such a declaration is out of scope.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I'd be willing to drop a piece of mail from a  
> source that says "I don't send mail" out of hand. I definitely  
> wouldn't
> do that for an unsigned message with "I sign everything" because it
> might have been damaged in transit. So the semantics are not the same.

If you believe the semantics are not the same, then what does the  
statement
"I sign everything" actually mean to a recipient when associated with  
unsigned
mail?

> So the scope argument is definitely the better question. One other  
> thing
> to consider is that the volume of traffic this corresponds to is  
> pretty
> small, so we're probably already wasted too many cycles arguing  
> about it :)

Cheers,
   Steve