On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
2. I don't care about the breakage and I'd prefer you reject
unsigned mail.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fundamental question
here is why should the recipient care what the sender claims he
prefers?
Anytime you send e-mail to someone, you're basically asking them to
do you a large favor by investing the effort to accept and deliver
it. Senders don't get to set rules about what recipients can do.
It's fine if senders can offer advice to recipients that the
recipients find useful to do what they want to do, which is
presumably to deliver mail that their own users want, but "because
I said so" doesn't make advice useful.
You are right. Scott's statement was poorly worded as a request to
the verifier. It should have been a simple statement about the
domain's intended practices. "This email-address represents messages
of a transactional nature" and "All other email-addresses may employ
non-compliant services that might damage their signature." When you
have decided to accept this domain's messages, the policy statement
might help reduce support calls due to valid undelivered messages as
well as preventing potential spoofing by enabling stronger
annotations in these exceptional cases. It should not take long for
recipient to expect to see these annotations on messages of this nature.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
