On Sep 9, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of McDowell,
Brett
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 9:51 AM
To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Cc: dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] subdomain vs. cousin domain (when deploying
"discardable")
The general rule would be to use a different domain that is
far enough from the transactional/brand domain that the risk of use for
enduser phishing is mitigated.
Does everyone agree that this is the "best practice" for the use case
provided (ignoring I only gave you two namespace options)?
It certainly is an option, and it would certainly work. But personally, I
reserve use of the words "best practice" for things that have been shown to
work better than all other options. I don't know that that's been measured
yet.
Good point... I figured someone would say it :-)
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops