robert(_at_)barclayfamily(_dot_)com wrote:
But I think there are a sufficient number of cases where domain owners
may want to make statements not just about mail that is not signed, but
about mail that is not signed by them.
Are you kidding me? I am willing to bet that given the opportunity to
do so, they will immediately apply strong SIGNING requirements to their
mail, IFF the receivers are going to HONOR the policies.
If we have such a relaxed mode of operation, bad guys just have to run
in legacy mode. No adaption required.
We are erroneously presuming everyone are going to depend on DKIM being
tied to reputation services and my view, this is going to be the biggest
mistake we make here.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html