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.
For us, the amount of mail that is in the false positive quandry is
really really small, though the people it would effect primiarly are
people who could make it a living hell in IT. A policy which is more
relaxed could, however, say that it's well worth the effort be extremely
cautious about such mail -- a far higher barrier to entry than the
current one-size-fits-all filters.
But you're talking about your own mail here, for which I expect that you
have all sorts of special treatment.
I'm trying to think about what I'll do when DKIM is in wide use, I get
mail from thousands of sources that publish SSP info. If SSP says "I sign
everything" I have trouble figuring a use for it other than a flat reject
of unsigned messages or at least 4.9 points in a five point scoring spam
filter. I REALLY do not want an SSP that says "I sign everything, and
here is my estimate on a 0 to 10 scale of how much you should care."
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html