On Monday 03 December 2007 23:23, John Levine wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > > Review of: > > > > DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01) > > Wow, thanks for a very thorough review. > > The biggest problem with this draft is that it goes way beyond > defining a protocol. > > Part of it describes the way that senders publish statements about > their sending practices and the way that receivers can look for those > statements, which is fine, but the rest attempts to tell receivers > what to do with mail they have received, which is not. > > It really needs to back up and define how a sender publishes its > policy, how a recipient can look up a policy if it wants to do so, > then stop. That's all they need to interoperate. > -1
While senders certainly can't dictate receiver policy, giving an indication of what they expect to have happen is perfectly reasonable and reduces uncertainty. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
