On May 24, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > --On 24 May 2010 10:36:46 -0400 "John R. Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > >>> I do recall. Perhaps if the list (and other lists) were rejecting the >>> mail, they'd be more likely to act. We don't have to wait for them, do >>> we? >> >> Not at all. If we can agree that lists should reject discardable mail >> out of self defense, that's a good point to add to the BCP.
+1 Refusing signups from those domains is probably a bit extreme, though. >> > > I think that's probably the most principled thing to do. > > For self-protection, there's also the option of NOT sending the message > with a VERPed sender address. That would mean that a subsequent rejection > should not count against the recipient. If the list is using some other > mechanism to count rejections, then that mechanism should not be used. If the recipient is rejecting mail from the list, then the list should stop attempting to send mail to that recipient. It should not try and guess why the mail is no longer wanted. We really don't want people to use ADSP (or, much worse, DKIM) as an excuse for not handling bounces nor for sending unwanted email. > That option isn't so easy to deploy though, because it's performed after > the signature is broken. And, there's no point sending the message because > we can't expect that it will be delivered. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
