Stephen Farrell wrote:
> If a domain owner publishes an open policy, and if some "bad"
> unsigned messages apparently emanate from that domain then the
> domain owner's reputation may suffer.
Why would any rational reputation system make such an assertion?
It is as stupid as holding domain holders responsible in the
absense of dkim or some other identification mechanism: the
domain holder has no way to prevent it. If this is a threat,
then so is "receivers may trash DKIM-signed messages just because
they feel like it", which is true but useless.
ietf-dkim mailing list