On Jul 26, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
I've always wondered why dkim is taking on the task of supporting
"I don't send mail" since the statement makes no reference to
signatures at all. Arguably, that's something that should be dealt
with by someone else, who might also think about saying "I only
send mail that's less than 1MB", or, "I only send invoices".
A "No Mail Expected" policy is going to very powerful policy for
domains
where mail is never expected. You find this now with SPF.
Altavista.com
has a "Alway Reject" policy.
"All mail claiming to be from altavista.com is forged"
"v=spf1 +exists:CL.%{i}.FR.%{s}.HE.%{h}.null.spf.altavista.com
-all"
"This domain sends no email"
"Null SPF is for tracking purposes only"
"MX 0 ." seems to be the standard way of asserting that a domain
neither sends nor receives email. Shoehorning the same assertion
into multiple different pseudo-standards simply leads to contradiction.
I don't see why people would pay any more attention to an SSP
statement of such than they do to SPF statements of it. Just the
opposite, shoehorning unneeded cruft into SSP makes it less likely
that people will pay any attention to it, I'd think.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html