[ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Sat May 14 11:32:21 PDT 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:22 AM
> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
> My reading of SM's comments is for replacing "Best Current Practices",
> not normative language in general (but in particular, where it is
> redundant.) I consider his thoughts in accord with what another John
If the document status changes to Informational, which is what I expect, I don't think we can use normative language at all.
> > 3.6.2 applies to relays, not recipients. A relay might try DKIM
> > validation and ADSP evaluation, but that's not the model this
> > document discusses.
> Yes, my understanding of that SMTP snippet is that it concerns
> responses to RCPT TO:<particular address>, while DKIM and ADSP can
> only be evaluated after <CRLF>.<CRLF>. (In this respect, mentioning
> "user unknown" in the MLM spec may cause some confusion in readers not
> familiar with SMTP.)
I don't think it refers to any specific phase of SMTP; could be post-DATA (per DKIM), could be RCPT for some other method.
> > But to be conformant, I suppose 550 5.7.0 would be appropriate.
> Conformant to what?
RFC5321, as cited.
More information about the ietf-dkim