--- Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess that depends on exactly what we are talking about. Some > messages are pretty well inherently abusive while others it depends on > the context. > > If it's a message that has some inherent characteristic that makes it > abusive (it's fradulent for example), then going to the source makes > perfect sense. > > If it's a message that is not inherently abusive, but unwanted by a > particular recipient, then I think it's not so clear. Was the message > delivered to the recipient that didn't want it because of an action of > the sender, the receiver, or some third party? The signature tells you > nothing about that.
Sure. But none of your scenarios implicate a forwarding agent or suggest that you'd want to take action against a forwarding agent. My point is simple. All this discussion about forwarding agents signing is moot as forwarding agents are rarely a party that a recipient will want to take action against. Ergo, signing by forwarding agents is not core to DKIM. Interesting, sure. Core, no. Mark. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
