[ietf-dkim] ADSP breaks forwarding

[John R. Levine]

>> 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[1], 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 
mine."

> 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.

R's,
John