On 9/14/10 2:36 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote: > --On 13 September 2010 21:18:41 -0400 "John R. Levine"<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > The final version said >> > >> > if a message arrives without a valid Author Domain Signature due to >> > modification in transit, submission via a path without access to a >> > signing key, or any other reason, the domain encourages the > recipient(s) >> > to discard it. >> > >> > I think it's a reasonable interpretation to say that if you expect your >> > list software might break the signature, you're doing the sender a favor >> > by pre-discarding it since that's what the recipients should do anyway. >> > > Absolutely not. The condition doesn't apply when you receive the message, > so the signer is NOT encouraging you to discard it, and the general rules > apply: you should deliver the message or notify the sender (or the sending > MTA). > > It may be that the message can be bounced, with a non delivery > notification. For example, if the return path matches the content of a > signed header, and they're both in the domain of the signer, then you're > probably not issuing collateral spam. If you are issuing collateral spam in > this instance, then the fault probably lies with the controller of the > sender domain (for allowing intra-domain spoofing). > > If the MLM owner knowingly breaks a signature, and either discards the > message or forwards it into a system that is likely to discard it, and do > not notify the sender, then the forwarder must be responsible for any harm > done. They really should reject such messages. Agree.
-Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
