[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
At 10:10 AM -0800 2/26/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 8:48 AM -0800 2/26/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
The proposed mechanism incurs an additional lookup for
every signed message.
You keep saying this without justifying it. Others have
shown it to be
wrong. Please stop repeating it or support your statement.
Actually, they haven't.
Well, at least I have. If a recipient gets a message with a
valid signature, they never need to look up an SSP record.
That refutes your statement pretty fully, doesn't it?
The argument that was made seemed to be:
1) People will prefer to do a DNS lookup to a signature verification
2) Therefore they will always look up policy first as an optimization
3) Therefore policy requires an extra DNS lookup
4) Therefore policy is a bad thing
So in other words we should not support policy since this would enable people
to optimize their systems in ways that would make them less efficient.
Regardless of what the rationale is this has nothing to do with what the policy
actually says.
And the argument is bunk anyway. It is very likely that any spam management
scheme is going to be doing some form of per message reputation lookup by
domain on a per message basis but that is almost certainly going to be to a
local resource rather than to the Internet at large.
Any speculation as to the design of such systems or how policy would be
involved is futile and out of scope.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html