> -----Original Message----- > From: John R. Levine [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 4:21 PM > To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr- > 00(fwd) > > > I don't recollect you proposing wording that included "silently" so it > > isn't even possible for a person going back and look at the discussions > > to know what you meant. > > > > We are therefore left with what you wrote and which the working group > > came to a consensus on. > > Whatever. I find it hard to see how anyone could interpret the RFC and > the discussion leading up to it as a hidden consensus to send spam every > time a receiver saw "dkim=discardable", but I'm clearly not going to > persuade you otherwise. >
Folks should interpret the RFC how it is written. For a failure on "discardable" the receiver is encouraged to discard the message. Thus it is written thus it is interpreted. By omission it is left to the receiver to decide whatever else they might or might not do in conjunction with a decision to discard messages. That is beyond the scope of what is written in RFC5617. I did not say receivers MUST nor did I say receivers SHOULD, I said that they COULD as one approach to the issue of making it clear that any non-delivery is at the direction of the sending domain. A receiver might choose to only do so for a financial domain such as Paypal. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
