On 26/05/2010 23:40, Brett McDowell wrote: > This is a good example of a tradeoff that I think would benefit from some > agreed upon principles. If we agreed to the following two principles, I > think we'd all find a lot more common ground: > > 1) Authenticated email is optional, not required > 2) We desire to fully enable the functionality of the authenticated email > ecosystem, but > 3) We will do nothing with the authenticated email architecture that forces > non-participating email stakeholders harm/breakage/errors >
That would be three principles, and I think they're sound. This does leave us somewhere rather unpleasant for: - sender from a discardable domain sends to a mailing list, despite the advice being not to - the MLM is a non-participant - a subscriber is rejecting messages which fail DKIM authentication (conservative stance: avoid silent failures causing mail loss) - the MLM unsubscribes the recipient for [multiple] refusals In this case, a participating-but-conservative receiver cops collateral damage because of incorrect/ill-advised behaviour by a sender. This is an undesirable outcome. I'd strengthen #3 with unrelated harm/breakage/errors should not arise from participating stakeholders behaving conservatively. - Roland -- Roland Turner | Director, Professional Services Group BoxSentry Pte Ltd | 3 Phillip Street #13-03, Singapore 048693 Mobile: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner [email protected] | http://www.boxsentry.com/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
