Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

[Damon <[e-mail]>]

> > Also, if the usual strategy of a verifier is to bounce (or be
> > encouraged to bounce) the offending email, a "I sign all" sender will
> > almost always know about delivery failures of originally signed
> > traffic and be able to act accordingly.
>
> Right.  I don't see a big reason to worry with this at all.  There are all sorts of reasons SMTP might bounce a message back as it is.

True, but those bounces are more than likely going back to the user to
let them know, their buddy changed his email address, or they
mistyped, etc. Things that they can effect.
 This bounce will be utterly useless to the user because they can't do
anything about it except to resend. So they get 10 more bounces for 10
re-sends... then what.. my phone starts ringing off the hook. Not
something I will likely be able to fix right away.... and my phone
keeps ringing.

Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html