--On 24 May 2010 13:41:37 -0700 Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> I think that's probably the most principled thing to do. >> >> For self-protection, there's also the option of NOT sending the message >> with a VERPed sender address. That would mean that a subsequent >> rejection should not count against the recipient. If the list is using >> some other mechanism to count rejections, then that mechanism should >> not be used. > > 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. No, there are plenty of reasons that a recipient might reject *some* email from a list, but not the rest. For example, the recipient site might be more fussy about RFC compliance in the email. I've been unsubscribed from Yahoo lists because they relayed mail with ';' separating email addresses in sender headers. > > 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. No, and of course a site needn't reject ADSP mail with broken signatures. Indeed, to protect it's members from unwanted unsubscriptions, it might be better to drop the email than reject it. But, then the sender might never discover what they're doing wrong. If the recipient rejects the message, then the list should be able to bounce back to the sender, since it was originally properly signed. >>... > Cheers, > Steve -- 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
