> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:53 AM > To: Daniel Black > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Deployment Guide Section 6.1/6.5 > (ADSP/Forwader) conflict > > My feeling is this: > > 1) Make DISCARD rejection a knob and see how it goes. > 2) For ALL or just plain old DKIM signatures, use that information as > an > end receiver would to make a spam/ham decision, but otherwise pass > *everything* > through to the final recipient even if they're 100% sure they broke > the > signature. (Forensics) > 3) Always resign the message if it's possible.
The open source implementations I have do it this way. Unfortunately I don't have any data to report from users yet. Perhaps I can add some anonymous-as-possible off-by-default well-documented stats and data collection and ask people to turn it on during the experimental period. It seems easier to do something like that than asking users to send me data after the fact. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
