Douglas Otis wrote: >> 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. [...] >> In theory, a receiver of case 1) signing can use the "I sign >> all" information, along with other information the receiver >> knows about the source of the email (is it a known mailing >> list? etc.) to make a reasonable guess about whether a >> broken/missing signature is a good spam indicator or not. [...] > defining these states should probably exclude who is at > blame for mail accepted or blocked.
+1 Receivers might not know some mailing-lists, consider known lists as bad, etc. For receivers with an empty white-list case 1 and 2 are very similar. And rejecting is better than "tag as suspicious" (which in essence means "let the users delete this unread") > Not damaging signatures at the MDA would be most important A wannabe-MDA damaging signatures, stripping header fields, or not reporting the Return-Path is IMHO a gateway to lala-land. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
