[mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 7/17/2007

[Michael Thomas]

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
>> I would change it to say that the sender authentication reports for
>> path-sensitive methods should only be added at the points where those
>> methods make sense, and SHOULD NOT be added elsewhere.
>>   
> I imagine since this is going to be a standards track document, I'd have 
> to be more precise and comprehensive than that, e.g. path-based tests 
> SHOULD be done only at border MTAs, and client validity checks SHOULD be 
> done only at injection points.  The crypto stuff (e.g. DKIM) can really 
> be done anywhere so there's no need to restrict that case.  Are there 
> any others I'd need to include?

I'd suggest steering well clear of telling other protocols how they
should function, or BCP like schoolmarmery. The job of this protocol
is to report results. Whether those results were determined locally or
by ESP shouldn't matter.

		Mike