----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 07:48 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
I would rather use direct correlations and real operational
history based on similar concepts such as SPF, to have enough
insight to see history will repeat itself here with DKIM
using neutral policies or NO SSP (therefore NEUTRAL by default).
Most major ISPs request neutral handling when their SPF records
do not match the client. For some this was not good enough, and
they even requested positive handling.
While reasons for a DKIM signature failure will be different, they
will persist just as they have with SPF. If history offers
guidance, it would be to NOT request handling except in
exigent situations.
And what are those "Exigent Situations?"
In principle, I disagree with the assertion that we are not offering new
ways to filter mail. I'm a realist. That is exactly how it is going to be
used. Whether it is standard SSP, non-standard proprietary REPUTATION
schemes, Heuristics, Classification, Neural Nets methods, etc, its all about
the same thing - Query Dissemination. Its a long establish science.
While it is true the industry has evolved with legacy operations for which
there is little to do about the exploitations, and for the most part
receivers followed a fail-safe philosophy, with DKIM-SSP, we would be
evolving beyond legacy operations and therefore a new level of expectations
with new protocol attributes that allows signers and receivers to leverage.
Hopefully, towards their benefit and not the benefit of the exploiters.
In short, if you do something that will move you into a new category, then
we are no longer talking about the inadequacies of 20+ years old legacy
operation.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html