On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:36:52 -0700 Steve Atkins <steve(_at_)blighty(_dot_)com>
wrote:
So describing "inconsistent results" as a "risk of signing" seems
something of a non-sequitur. Or possibly I'm misunderstanding,
in which case I'm sure Hector will expand on the issue, with a
clearer explanation of what he means and some concrete
examples.
If I understand Hector's point, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I don't, I
agree with him, although I wouldn't put it as strongly as he does.
Today the primary identity for reputation is the client IP address. For
better or for worse, we all pretty much understand how it works and how to,
reasonably well, stay off the bad lists. Once you start to sign, that
changes. Reputation can, and should, have a name basis.
Now I don't say thing are better or worse, just different and less certain.
In terms I'm used to, uncertainty ~= risk. Is the risk large or small? I
have no data (FWIW I've decided to start DK signing some of my mail to get
some experience with it).
Why do senders want to accept this risk?
I think that in the long run, this will work out and it will be understood
at least as well as the IP based systems are now, but there is a period of
initial uncertainty.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html