On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:57:43AM -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
I also hadn't realized that DKIM was strictly meant to benefit
receivers.
Did you really think DKIM will alter the deeply embedded mail filtering
landscape? :-)
Like you at one time said, I was hoping for a deterministic result. ;)
<snip>
For us to even bother signing mail, we have to have some SSP assurance that
receivers are going to DUMP forged mail. Otherwise, to me, there is no
payoff - but just glorified worthless overhead.
I haven't had a chance to read the SSP doc, but I heard it uses i= for that
case.
--
:: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html