[ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft
brett.mcdowell at me.com
Wed May 26 08:40:24 PDT 2010
This is a good example of a tradeoff that I think would benefit from some agreed upon principles. If we agreed to the following two principles, I think we'd all find a lot more common ground:
1) Authenticated email is optional, not required
2) We desire to fully enable the functionality of the authenticated email ecosystem, but
3) We will do nothing with the authenticated email architecture that forces non-participating email stakeholders harm/breakage/errors
If we agree to that then I believe it opens up some opportunities and clarifies why we would have rough consensus on some of the major issues that have been under debate for a few weeks now.
For example: In the past I have argued that the receivers should simply not bounce DKIM+ADSP=discardable messages back to the MLM. But that position assumes the receiver is participating in the authN email ecosystem. The principles listed above would lead me to change that position.
On May 26, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 7:00 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Steve Atkins <steve at wordtothewise.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 2010, at 6:38 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Since ADSP causes problems for innocent bystanders, I think it's
>>> reasonable to decline A's mail in the first place. This is doubly
>>> true since the ADSP RFC rather specifically says that you shouldn't
>>> mark a domain discardable if its users send mail to lists.
>> It causes no problems at all to innocent bystanders in that case - the
>> recipient at domain B is a willing participant who has chosen both
>> to pay attention to ADSP and to respond to it by rejecting, rather than
>> discarding, mails labeled "discardable".
>> Perhaps I missed something, but if domain B is rejecting email from the list Authored by A, then won't that cause a list member at domain B to be removed from the list as well? I think that is what John meant by innocent bystander. Most MLM remove subscribers after repeated bounces. I don't know if they are smart enough to look into why the message bounced.
> That's exactly the issue, and not a theoretical one.
> However, domain B is not an innocent bystander, as they intentionally configured their mail system to reject mail it shouldn't, and the recipients at domain B support that decision, on some level.
> The mailing list operator is the one caught in the middle between two domains that have made bad decisions, so is an innocent bystander, but the level of inconvenience to them is pretty small, relative to the usual overhead of running a mailing list.
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim