I'd like to voice my support for Bill's position, notwithstanding #1360
from a year ago.
The reality is that many smaller domain owners rely on their ISP or some
other service provider to deal with the "under-the-hood" stuff. The
cname suggestion is interesting but I haven't had time to think it
through.
Bill and anybody else who is responsible for outbound mail knows that
they are going to get dinged - signed or not - if they don't address
issues caused by mail coming from their system.
If Bill is willing to sign and wants a stronger statement made by SSP
that the domain uses his DKIM signature, where is the technical
objection? It indicates the From domains signing policy and makes it
easier for a receiver to more clearly ascertain a party that wants to
take responsibility for the message. Isn't that the object of the
exercise?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:01 AM
To: deepvoice(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com; johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP
"Bill, from now on, if you have a
spammer who gets an account, I am going to hold you and your
entire ISP responsible... I know you did it, I have your
signature right here."
Would you care for a list of largish mail systems/ISP's that
do that now?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html