Wietse Venema wrote:
Hector Santos:
I don't expect mail from this domain - kill it, don't
tag it or mark it as bad for user's to see, kill it,
don't pass it on. Its not ours! - If you do, it is
no longer our responsibility as DKIM-BASE suggest it
is."
Enough is enough.
I thought we already debunked the myth that SSP can tell receivers
what they should do.
For the record, the SSP draft contains "instructions,"
"recommendations," [PICK YOUR ENGLISH], on mail handling mail.
But what VERY WELL ESTABLISHED is that it was left to the decretion of
the receiver.
2.8. Suspicious
Messages that do not contain a valid Originator Signature and which
are inconsistent with a Sender Signing Practices check (e.g., are
received without a Valid Signature and the sender's signing practices
indicate all messages from the entity are signed) are referred to as
"Suspicious". The handling of such messages is at the discretion of
the Verifier or final recipient. "Suspicious" applies only to the
DKIM layer; a Verifier may decide the message should be accepted on
the basis of other information beyond the scope of this document.
Conversely, messages deemed non-Suspicious may be rejected for other
reasons.
5.1. Mailing List Manager Actions
...
Mailing List Managers MAY:
o Reject messages with signatures that do not verify or are
otherwise Suspicious.
I don't know what WORLD you live in, but DKIM/SSP is simply about
CLEANING UP SPAM - call it or market it like you want. The WORLD will
see it as a ANTI-SPAM solution.
SSP is about providing DKIM failures some "reason" and verifiers a
better handle on what to do with it, and if the DOMAIN is not interested
in getting rid of abusive mail in there name, then I fail to see the
purpose of DKIM.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html