Hector Santos wrote:
I preached back in August/2008 in SPF-DISCUSS the analysis for
the SPF and DKIM association:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/21503
Sorry, I missed that. What I was referring to was an old thread
about dkim=something or op=dkim modifiers.
DKIM/SSP must be designed without any SPF dependency.
Sure, this subthread here was about *optional* SSP accelerators
elsewhere, e.g. in DKIM or SPF records. I don't understand the
DKIM proposal, why would you look up DKIM for the most important
SSP case "no signature" ?
unless it is your opinion the DKIM total solution includes
SPF/SENDERID
PRA is an anti-phishing MUA gimmick based on a worldwide upgrade,
you can't do much with a PRA PASS without white list. With an
SPF PASS you can "accept and bounce", that should be interesting
for anything you plan to do with a message, not limited to DKIM.
I don't understand why you keep injecting SPF here
Wait a moment, adding SSP info to DKIM was *your* proposal, and
that made no sense for me. Therefore I mentioned Scott's old
idea of an SSP-accelerator in SPF. In 2005 you observed that
for about 80% of all mails PRA matches 2821-From, maybe it's
similar for 2821-From matching the 1st 2822-From address. I'm
not hot about SSP-accelerators in SPF, as Jim said it's likely
too early to discuss optimizations.
they are really independent concepts and DKIM/SSP must stand
on its own and implementations must be ready to deal with it
independently.
Indeed. As long as your bounces don't hit innocent bystanders
and as long as you don't drop legit mail do whatever you like ;-)
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html