On 14/Sep/10 03:18, John R. Levine wrote: > Early drafts of what turned into ADSP used the word "strict" which I > changed to "discardable" to make it clear that if you set this flag, > you're saying the mail is unusually unimportant, to the extent that if > there's doubt about its legitimacy, just throw it away.
At the time, "strict" was meant to be the equivalent of DK's "-", wasn't it? IMHO, "discardable" has been an addition rather than a substitution. Given that, and assuming that "discardable means discardable", as you wrote[1], is it correct to _reject_ on _all_? [1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q1/009557.html > 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. Hear, hear. Does such criterion also apply to, say, courtesy forwarding? Consider the following test I made: Authentication-Results: ns1.qubic.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) [email protected] header.b=CGKfNJdO; dkim-adsp=pass ... Subject: Test quoted printable X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by courier 0.64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ns1.qubic.net id o7SAsR9R006644 The message was signed as quoted-printable, hence they (dk.elandsys.com) obviously had verified it /before/ converting back to 8bit. Thereafter, they should not forward adsp-encumbered messages, unless wrapped inside entirely new messages, with their own "From" (as they actually do, for the autoresponder.) Is that correct? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
