On 8/4/06, John L <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Part of the problem here is the past record of SPF with over-zealous 550 if
> there's any hint of bogosity. We, for example, would be forced to take down
> a "we sign everything" policy if that were to happen with DKIM -- even though
> we'll be signing everything pretty soon. If there were a qualifier in the "I
> sign everything policy" that specifically implies that sending a 550 based on
a
> missing DKIM signature alone is extremely bone-headed" then maybe we can both.
I don't see the point. That last suggestion is, to the recipient, the
equivalent of a useless "I sign some mail" since you're telling the
recipient it's OK to accept some amount of both signed and unsigned mail.
+1
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html