On Wednesday 26 July 2006 16:28, Steve Atkins wrote:
There is no need to tie "signing of email" to "this domain
sends no email". As such it's not something that _has_ to
be in SSP (unlike "We send no non-signed email"). If you
believe SSP has value you pretty much have to believe
the same of SPF, and SPF already supports making that
statement.
So the only advantage of supporting "we send no mail"
in SSP would be if you believe that the set of people who
look at SSP and do not look at SPF is noticably non-zero.
That's not a reason not to add support for this to SSP, though,
as long as you recognize that it's just adding a redundant
way of saying the same thing at the cost of a small increase
in complexity and risk of contradictory policy messages
via different communication channels.
It might be useful (later, after the requirements discussion is complete) to
explore the feasibility of a common policy record for the two for future
revisions. The risk associated with complexity and the possibility of
contradictory policy statements may make the associated up front pain
worthwhile.
I would imagine that 'the market' is looking for simplicity in a holistic
approach. The more that these technologies can be effectively integrated,
the better off the average mail admin will be.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html