----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Kitterman" <ietf-dkim(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy
options
For many small domains, signing themselves will be completely out of reach
due to cost and lack of expertise.
Frankly, I have been thinking how the majority my mail market customers will
react too. Everything must be GUI and provided for them if you want the
features to be used.
All I know is that when presented with the most generalized description of
DKIM, by far, the feedback has been that if given they choice, they nearly
all wanted exclusive signing practices. Which basically means they don't
want anyone screwing around with their domain properties regardless on how
that was done.
To this day, I still don't see why anyone will want to sign a domain for
public exposure with a cross your finger, "hope it won't break" thinking.
i.e, use it on a list system of today.
But at the very least, if we wanted to allow for this, then we ought to see
how to minimize the impact of what I see will be a high false positive rate
(or false negative depending on how you want to look at it).
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html