On 5/13/11 8:12 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: [...]
>> "In such cases where the submission fails that test, the receiver or >> verifier SHOULD discard the message but return an SMTP success code, >> i.e. accept the message but drop it without delivery. An SMTP >> rejection of such mail instead of the requested discard action >> causes more harm than good." >> >> I would remove the SHOULD as the argument (second sentence) is >> clear. The usage of the SHOULD raises the question about whether >> this is a SMTP receiver action and whether it is appropriate to >> create a black hole (silent drop of message). > This should have been explained more clearly in RFC 5617. Perhaps, we > should say that "discardable" means "droppable" in general? The problem what 'discardable' means has been introduced in RFC5617 and I don't think draft-ietf-dkim-mailingslists-10.txt has to 'fix' that problem. The meaning of 'discardable' has been discussed on this list at least two times (see for example http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q1/009557.html) and this has AFAIK not resulted in one unambiguous conclusion. Furthermore, as it's not primarily an MLM issue (but an ADSP issue), I don't think we should re-open the discussion again. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it's important to define what we mean with discardable, but not here, not now. I'd propose to put this item ('writeup a definition of 'discardable') on the to-do list of a successor of RFC5617, if there ever will be one. Or on another future 'policy' document. /rolf _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
