At 07:49 27-05-10, Michael Thomas wrote:
>Considering that this is really a 5822 level problem, I have my
>doubts that a DKIM/ADSP
5322. :-)
>targeted document is the right place to bury this kind of advice.
>And I'm also skeptical
>that we have the right set of eyes looking at this in this working
>group because this is
>certainly a very old topic and it would be stupid of us to come out
>with advice that goes
>against or without the consent of the much larger smtp community.
There's a discussion of local policy in Section 6.3 of RFC
4871. I'll emphasize the first sentence of that section:
"It is beyond the scope of this specification to describe what actions
a verifier system should make."
In terms of implementation, we might be doing some rejects at the
SMTP level. I refrained from suggesting having that as part of the
default knobs because of the odd cases.
I am wary about going beyond the RFC 5322 level for some of the
reasons you stated above and because DKIM does not operate at that level.
At 07:53 27-05-10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>I think it's appropriate since ADSP is creating the problem (or in
>your view, extending the existing problem).
Maybe, but this is the kind of thing where some people will take the
simplistic answer and ignore the caveats.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
