John L wrote:
In other words, you really have no clue as to how these people use email
and what the collateral damage would be. The average small firm/company
doesn't even understand the difference between a mailing list, a blog
or a discussion board. And you expect them to be able to make an
informed
decision?
I have a pretty good idea how lawyers use e-mail, since I do a fair
amount of expert witness work and do all of the routine stuff (i.e.,
not of interest to opposing lawyers) by e-mail. Lawyers exchange some
of the highest value e-mail of anyone, case management messages with
courts and other law firms. If one of those messages gets lost, it
can mean that the lawyer loses a case by default. This is not a
hypothetical concern; see my blog entry at
http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/barge.html
So if "sign everything" SSP makes their point to point mail more
reliable, law firms will use it in a millisecond.
I cannot see how SSP can do anything but make false positives more likely.
The real question is whether the gain in eliminating harmful mail is
worth the
occassional false positive. So if what you are saying is true, law
firms would
be literally nuts to turn SSP "I sign everything" on, and so I'm
surprised to hear
that you think they should.
Speaking as a receiver, I have to say I didn't find that info either
useful or interesting.
I wasn't aware that you wrote spam filters for a living.
I wasn't aware that "receiver" was a synonym for "commercial spam
filter vendor." One learns something new every day.
Meaning that your opinion of utility is not the sole gauge of utility. In
fact, you probably benefit a lot from people who find utility in things that
you don't care about to keep your mail mostly spam free.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html