On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:00 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
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.
+1
My organization has recently started DKIM signing (millions and
millions
of emails signed in the last 10 days) for 5 large scale mailing
domains
plus making strong SPF assertions for those domains. The end game I
want
to see for DKIM-SSP (Can't we make SSP broader? Please?) would be
for me
to be able to make the assertion that ALL mail from these domains is
signed and ONLY comes from the IP addresses indicated in our SPF
records.
Sounds like interesting operational data.
Could you expand on your choice to use ~all for ag.com - presumably
important corporate mail - while using -all for americangreetings.com -
presumably bulk/junk/e-card mail?
Also, were there any interesting delivery rate changes when you
changed your
SPF practices?
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html