That might be interesting data, if you can share it.
---
Sent from my mobile phone
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On 9/9/10 11:42 AM, 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 Douglas Otis
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:16 AM
To: dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] subdomain vs. cousin domain (when deploying
"discardable")
On 9/9/10 9:51 AM, McDowell, Brett wrote:
Does everyone agree that this is the "best practice" for the use case
provided (ignoring I only gave you two namespace options)?
Until more comprehensive policy becomes available, yes.
In general, using a cousin domain is a bad practice, where the term
"far" has not been met by your current practice. [...]
Are there any recorded data supporting that assertion?
We experienced an increase in phishing when our marketing department
decided to use cousin domains to promote new products. This left us
dealing with a greater number of complaints from users confused by what
they had installed. Unfortunately, there is an entire industry devoted
to taking advantage of user confusion.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops