On Mar 22, 2009, at 12:06 PM, SM wrote:
I prefer not to get into arguments about abuse at this stage. I'll
also avoid comments about "i=" on this thread. As you agreed to my
sentence, maybe you might agree with some parts of John Levine's
message. If we could iron out points of agreement and disagreement,
it might help in moving forward.
Concerns related to assessor inputs are centered upon whether to use
i= or d= vales. This overlooks the use of a two stage approach.
The d= value results can signal a need for subsequently resolving
intra-domain sources using i= values, for example. Making a series of
assessments is fairly normal, especially when not doing so exposes
receivers to high levels of undesired messages. Large domains are
unable to perfectly vet outbound DKIM messages, where each message
that is mistakenly signed can be replayed. When the intra-domain
problematic sources are limited in number, feedback can be quick and
effective. Secondary assessment results would not need to be retained
longer than message expiry when the signing domain responds to their
intra-domain sources being listed.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html