> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:22 AM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt> > (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP > > My reading of SM's comments is for replacing "Best Current Practices", > not normative language in general (but in particular, where it is > redundant.) I consider his thoughts in accord with what another John > noted: > [...]
If the document status changes to Informational, which is what I expect, I don't think we can use normative language at all. > > 3.6.2 applies to relays, not recipients. A relay might try DKIM > > validation and ADSP evaluation, but that's not the model this > > document discusses. > > Yes, my understanding of that SMTP snippet is that it concerns > responses to RCPT TO:<particular address>, while DKIM and ADSP can > only be evaluated after <CRLF>.<CRLF>. (In this respect, mentioning > "user unknown" in the MLM spec may cause some confusion in readers not > familiar with SMTP.) I don't think it refers to any specific phase of SMTP; could be post-DATA (per DKIM), could be RCPT for some other method. > > But to be conformant, I suppose 550 5.7.0 would be appropriate. > > Conformant to what? RFC5321, as cited. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
