Douglas Otis wrote:
> It seems unlikely DKIM, by itself, will offer a means to
> reduce the level of spam, which appears to the motivation
> behind aggressive rejection.
We've STRONG DKIM and "weak" DKIM. For the former you need
a valid "originator" signature, otherwise reject is the most
sensible thing to do: Tag as suspicious and move it to some
"potential junk" folder expecting end users to wade through
it manually could degenerate into "drop", and then "reject"
is much better for legit senders.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
