--On 29 October 2009 08:53:36 -0400 hector <[email protected]> wrote:
> Problem #1 > > Only DKIM=DISCARDABLE has an explicit handling mandate. DKIM=ALL does > not. So as in SPF=SOFTFAIL, DKIM=ALL leaves receivers in wasteful limbo. No, they don't. They both provide useful information. For example, we provide very limited whitelisting which requires that senders get an SPF pass - to get on our whitelist, senders have to publish SPF records. The skip some of our checks when they send mail from the right sender to the right recipient through an SPF protected channel, but not otherwise. DKIM=all gives me useful information, too. If I seem mail from such a domain, without a signature, and can't see that it's taken a path that might have broken a signature, then I know to treat the mail with suspicion. I won't discard it, but I might reject it at SMTP time. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
