-----Original Message-----
From: dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:dkim-ops-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:58 AM
To: dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] hammering with a soldering iron, was subdomain
vs. cousin domain
No Murray. But perhaps someone should be because the responsibility is
now once again shifted from the passive 3rd party signer back to the
visible 1st party 8222.From equal d= domain transaction. As far as
the potential millions of potential receivers are concern, the Author
Domain is once again responsible for signing the message.
And rightly so, in this scenario. But even if it's a visible third-party
delegation, now the From: is associated with a third-party and a bad signature.
Are you saying that's better? If so, based on what?
Worst, when the signature fails, the wrong domain brand and unknown
reputation scoring across receivers is negatively hurt.
That would be a poor implementation. A failed signature is supposed to be
treated as no signature.
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops