Perhaps his provider signs all outgoing mail regardless without having
to parse a list of who signs their own mail locally. Daemon is also
right, spam from bots inside his ISP space will be sending mail that is
signed by the provider until they are stopped by the abuse department.
Thanks,
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications, Inc.
Alpharetta GA
404-847-6397
bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:12 AM
To: Damon
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms
Hi,
Damon wrote:
I was having this discussion with someone off-list but...
Where I live, I am serviced by only one ISP. I get a discount by
having
my services (business, home, cell, internet, etc) bundled by this one
provider and they sign all my messages. Choosing another provider etc.
may not be financially agreeable. I also know that there are spammers
or
bots on this provider that take enjoyment out of using my name. So I
want to say- Trust my signature but expressly distrust my providers
signature if not also signed by me. Both messages, mine and the
spammers
are genuine and unchanged, signed by my provider, but only my signed
messages are valid.
I see this as a feature.
I don't understand what the provider's signature is bringing to the
party in this case. Why is:
your signature plus a please-distrust-this-provider signature
better than
your signature alone?
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html