>> Early drafts of what turned into ADSP used the word "strict" which I >> changed to "discardable" to make it clear that if you set this flag, >> you're saying the mail is unusually unimportant, to the extent that if >> there's doubt about its legitimacy, just throw it away. > > At the time, "strict" was meant to be the equivalent of DK's "-", wasn't it? > IMHO, "discardable" has been an addition rather than a substitution.
Hey, I wrote it, I know what I did. I changed strict to discardable to better describe what it means, and try to discourage the wrong impression that it means mail is important. > that, and assuming that "discardable means discardable", as you wrote[1], is > it correct to _reject_ on _all_? We don't offer any suggested handling for dkim=all. "Well, it might be a forgery, or it might have a signature broken in transit, or they might be mistaken and not really sign all their mail. Your guess is as good as mine." > Hear, hear. Does such criterion also apply to, say, courtesy forwarding? If the courtesy forward recodes the message and breaks the signature, as your example does, I suppose so. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
