Doug,
Are you suggesting a methodology should be applied to a form of
blacklist that DKIM would/should reject?
Thanks,
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:29 PM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: Barry Leiba; IETF DKIM WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Configuring "unacceptable" domains
On Feb 21, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
The DKIM base draft has been updated and submitted. The changes
are minimal, comprising response to IESG review and some XML
updates intended to smooth the rfc-editor review.
And the -base-10 draft is now on its way to the RFC editor queue,
[1] having passed IESG review. Many thanks to everyone who worked
to get this done. And now we just wait for the RFC editor
process, and the RFC number for the Proposed Standard.
And get active on SSP again. (Or should I cancel the Prague meeting
slot? So far we've little to discuss it seems.)
Devote some time resolving how DKIM verifiers should configure
"unlikely" or "unacceptable" domains. Is there a recommended format
for the list? Perhaps this list could be called the Minimal Domain
Depth (MDD) or something. Should this list preclude known second and
third level domains, or just TLDs? Should this list be handled by
IANA? If so, there should be a corresponding draft.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html