Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:19 AM >> To: Murray S. Kucherawy >> Cc: [email protected]; John R. Levine; Daniel Black; ietf- >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the >> receiving side >> >>> They won't honour ADSP "dkim=discardable" records posted by others. >> So is it that they won't honor it as the sole criteria, or that they >> won't pay any attention to it at all? I can understand the former, >> but the later would be pretty weird since it's a pretty large hint >> that something's really wrong. > > I really don't want to be seen as speaking for Google based on two or three > sentences I exchanged with someone that works there. > > So let me answer this way: My own inference from the conversation is that > they wouldn't discard/reject mail based on ADSP without a legal agreement to > do so, but it might be used as a hint to move such mail into a spam folder.
But there are already rejecting mail with forged DKIM signatures. The last time I tried, replaying a DKIM signed message I grabbed from here, it never arrived. Done again by REMOVING the DKIM-signature and the message came in. I recall repeating this a few times to duplicate what I was seeing. If this is true today, then your conversation was probable high-end and not actually about what is being done. Google is indeed discarding invalid DKIM messages. No, it didn't go into a spam folder. Further, as it was noted, no one in their right engineering mind, not GOOGLE, not even us, can take POLICY serious when the author is doing everything to sabotage it and telling people not to suppose it. -- _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
