[ietf-dkim] ADSP breaks forwarding
John R. Levine
johnl at iecc.com
Tue Sep 14 07:31:51 PDT 2010
>> Early drafts of what turned into ADSP used the word "strict" which I
>> changed to "discardable" to make it clear that if you set this flag,
>> you're saying the mail is unusually unimportant, to the extent that if
>> there's doubt about its legitimacy, just throw it away.
> At the time, "strict" was meant to be the equivalent of DK's "-", wasn't it?
> IMHO, "discardable" has been an addition rather than a substitution.
Hey, I wrote it, I know what I did. I changed strict to discardable to
better describe what it means, and try to discourage the wrong impression
that it means mail is important.
> that, and assuming that "discardable means discardable", as you wrote, is
> it correct to _reject_ on _all_?
We don't offer any suggested handling for dkim=all. "Well, it might be a
forgery, or it might have a signature broken in transit, or they might be
mistaken and not really sign all their mail. Your guess is as good as
> Hear, hear. Does such criterion also apply to, say, courtesy forwarding?
If the courtesy forward recodes the message and breaks the signature, as
your example does, I suppose so.
More information about the ietf-dkim