ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

2006-08-04 09:17:24
I don't see the point. That last suggestion is, to the recipient, the equivalent of a useless "I sign some mail" since you're telling the recipient it's OK to accept some amount of both signed and unsigned mail.

For us, the amount of mail that is in the false positive quandry is really really small, though the people it would effect primiarly are people who could make it a living hell in IT. A policy which is more relaxed could, however, say that it's well worth the effort be extremely cautious about such mail -- a far higher barrier to entry than the current one-size-fits-all filters.

But you're talking about your own mail here, for which I expect that you have all sorts of special treatment.

I'm trying to think about what I'll do when DKIM is in wide use, I get mail from thousands of sources that publish SSP info. If SSP says "I sign everything" I have trouble figuring a use for it other than a flat reject of unsigned messages or at least 4.9 points in a five point scoring spam filter. I REALLY do not want an SSP that says "I sign everything, and here is my estimate on a 0 to 10 scale of how much you should care."

Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html