On 5/24/10 1:41 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: > > On May 24, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > Not at all. If we can agree that lists should reject discardable > > mail out of self defense, that's a good point to add to the BCP. > > Refusing signups from those domains is probably a bit extreme, > though.
Providing immediate feedback regarding a domain likely to cause recipients to miss their conversation should reduce the number of subsequent support issues. Otherwise, lost conversations will likely generate complaints requiring detailed analysis to resolve. Refusals for either "all" or "discardable" when the list is known to invalidate Author Domain signatures ensures list participants receive full conversations. > If the recipient is rejecting mail from the list, then the list > should stop attempting to send mail to that recipient. It should not > try and guess why the mail is no longer wanted. > > We really don't want people to use ADSP (or, much worse, DKIM) as an > excuse for not handling bounces nor for sending unwanted email. The "discardable" assertion does NOT mean a mailing list will see rejections. Only the "all" assertion ensures this level of feedback. This is why it remains important to have "all" refused whenever "discardable" is discarded. The concept of "discardable" was to offer just this type of excuse. -Doug > Cheers, Steve > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list > operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
