On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 20:29 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
DKIM should verify a domain that can be held accountable for stopping
abusive messages. (It would be nice for the recipient to see who is
accountable.) However, displaying the accountable domain is not needed
and should not be attempted with feeble header bindings. With DKIM,
administrators can ensure bad actors are excluded. With DKIM, creating
a list of trusted domains will exclude most of the emails which need
greater examination.
So, given that view, as a sender, what's in it for me?
Sounds like all I get is more spam reports and maybe on a domain based
blacklist if someone doesn't like my mail? What benifit is being
offered that I should risk that?
With DKIM, a small list of trusted signing domains will exclude most
emails which need greater examination. The level of support to maintain
this type of trusted list would be less than the traditional IP address
white-list. By not binding the signing domain with the mailbox-address,
there can be greater consolidation which further improves the leverage
of such a list. Those implementing DKIM could benefit by this rather
practical use. Complaints directed to those permitting access will
benefit the industry in general, and again provide greater acceptance
with DKIM as the basis. When MUAs eventually display the signing
domain, this should also be to signing domain's benefit.
Aspects of the message content may become beneficiaries of a domain
binding later, but should not be included in initial offering to ensure
fewer operational issues.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org