At 06:43 25-02-2008, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: >Without intending to put words in John's mouth, I think what he meant is >that there is the risk of some legitimate email being lost if a receiver >respects a discardable assertion. In that respect, sending domains need >to consider carefully the implications of making a discardable >assertion. Something along the lines of "careful what you ask for >because you just might get it".
The receiver might read it as "sender doesn't care whether the mail gets delivered". >The other factor is that receiving domains are going to consider >complaints received by their users for undelivered email in their >calculation of whether to respect a discardable assertion. We all know >that there are quite a few domains that have implemented all manner of >things incorrectly, poorly or with a misunderstanding of the >consequences of their actions. Once there is more experience with >SSP/Discardable/etc on the part of senders and receivers, I expect this >to be less of a problem - or should I say "I hope". John Levine made a case for when discardable is useful. As he doesn't even want rejections, the receiver will also have to decide what to do: 1. If the key cannot be retrieved in DNS 2. On failures for DKIM checks (excluding hash verification) 3. MTA failures At the moment, these are treated as a temporary failure. To avoid any blockback, the receiver might as well drop all mail from that domain. >The receiver domain is likely to choose to balance the benefit from >listening to discardable assertions and the increase in support calls >that might result from any particular domains discardable assertion. Yes. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
