Doug,
That was agreed to be closed on the jabber session.
No-one spoke against that, so please consider this closed/rejected.
(Eliot - you can close it now, thanks.)
Stephen.
Douglas Otis wrote:
https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1359
There was some agreement on the list regarding considerations pertaining
to who should receive the abuse feedback enabled by the DKIM signature.
When a designation scheme is considered, then this feedback
consideration becomes far more significant. Some assume the signing
domain will accrue a reputation for unsolicited commercial email, but
this overlooks limitations in the DKIM protocol making such
accountability impossible.
While DKIM may provide a means for accruing a list of domains that
either do or do not phish, it does not provide a means for accruing a
lists of domains that do or do not send unsolicited commercial email.
As a result, accrual of reputation for general acceptance will continue
to be done by the IP address of the SMTP client. This consideration
significantly alters assumptions regarding which domain should be
signing the messages, and what role domain designation might play.
-Doug_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according
tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html