> Then it needs explicit clarification in implementation guides. I think that > what the RFCs say is good. It's enough to give real benefit to recipients, > whereas the misinterpretation will make ADSP practically unusable (as if > only "discardable" existed).
[as chair] You're welcome to suggest specific text for the "deployment" document. It still has to go into IETF last call, so changes are still open. [as participant] It's still true that no matter how much we say how we want it to work, deployments will do what seems to them to maximize the blocking of spam. Some will prefer to block spam even at the expense of significant false positives. We'll just have to see how it works out, but we can take a cue from SPF, where there was a LOT of deletion based on SPF failures, even when the SPF records said softfail or neutral, approximately the same as ADSP's "all". Barry _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
