wayne:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) writes:
>
> > wayne:
> >> 1) I always sign, but I also know that I send email through relays
> >> that will break the signature. If you, as a receiver, reject
> >> legitimate email due to broken/missing signatures, it is your fault
> >> and I'll place the blame on you.
> >
> > This is an assertion about recipient actions and their consequences.
> >
> > There is a mistaken perception that that senders have control over
> > how recipients handle email (whether spoofed or not). A sensible
> > sender signing policy is limited to assertions about sender actions.
>
> You are mistaken that I have such a perception. To be honest, I can't
> think of anyone on this list that has that perception, although JohnL,
> DaveC and you seem to like to bring up this red herring.
I speak for myself.
And now to your words:
"If you, as a receiver, reject legitimate email due to
broken/missing signatures, it is your fault and I'll place the
blame on you."
This is an assertion about recipient actions and their consequences.
I call this an attempt to control receiver behavior; you call it
a different shade of grey. Fine. I won't quibble about whether it's
this shade or that, whether something is an absolute demand or
merely a suggestion. It's all part of the same slipperly slope.
A sensible sender signing policy is limited to assertions about
sender actions, and refrains from making statements about recipient
actions and their consequences.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
