--On 14 September 2010 10:32:53 -0400 "John R. Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It does not mean low value mail and I don't think you will find a >> sending mplementing dkim=discardable that would agree with you. > > Then in the RFC we utterly failed to make it clear what dkim=discardable > means. Sigh. > > Once again, we see that ADSP is so broken that even people who like it > don't understand what it is for. > > R's, > John So, when would email be so valuable that it needs signing, but of such low value that it doesn't need delivering? Answer, when they're two different emails (one spoofed). We're not talking about email with broken signatures, we're talking about email with good signatures that are about to become broken. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
