--On 23 May 2010 12:35:48 -0400 "John R. Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There may yet be a grey area for very sophisticated or experimental MLMs >> (like "Hmm... SpamAssassin medium score; maybe let it through but don't >> sign"), but then they don't need a BCP; we need them to publish the >> results of the experiment ;-) > > Quite right, and as always, the ASRG stands ready if someone wants to do > some, you know, research. > >> The only thing that leaves are non-participant MLMs and there really >> isn't much to be done with them. > > We have one concrete failure scenario, in which someone who publishes > dkim=discardable sends mail to a MLM that as usual breaks the signature, > a subscriber's mail system carefully follows the ADSP and rejects that > mail, causing the subscriber to be bounced off the list. (This really > happened, on an IETF list.) The advice is obvious a) put a shim in > front of your MLM to reject discardable mail and b) the usual advice not > to use ADSP at all, but it definitely needs publishing. The other piece of advice should be to actually discard, rather than rejecting, discardable email. That would have protected the subscriber from automatic unsubscription. > I'm surprised we haven't seen that problem on this list, since we have at > least one subscriber whose domain publishes dkim=discardable. I keep > having to fish his mail out of the spam folder. I guess the list should be rejecting his email! Then, perhaps, his organisation would get around to deploying a non-discardable domain. > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html -- 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
