> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:18 AM > To: DKIM List > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] more on discardable, was Lists "BCP" draft > > > Or are you saying that it shouldn't produce a bounce/5xx and just > > silently discard it? > > Exactly. > > If they would otherwise deliver the mail, and the reason they decided > not to was because of a combination of an ADSP-discardable record and > the lack of a DKIM signature then they should silently discard the > mail.
I don't think we can talk about "right" or "wrong" actions based on DKIM and ADSP because the language of RFC5617 is so soft with respect to the actual message disposition. The BCP can only provide advice about what has been observed to work, or what the WG believes will work. And I think we need to be very specific about "silently discard" if that's the practice we want to espouse. That's not something RFC5321 really suggests either. RFC5617 doesn't define what "discard" means, leaving the receiver open to choose to deliver to the spam folder, reply 250 but send it to the bitbucket, or reply 5xy, or even 4xy. For that matter, the same goes for "all". _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
