On Jan 28, 2008 10:18 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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.
Something that we (us trench warfare guys) have always had to do. But
passing off signing to a third party and not having to be in that
business (unless it's a value add ;-) and not having to sully the
reputation of the ISP as a whole is a far better solution in my eyes.
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?
No objection on my part- but I think we could do better.
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?
Certainly but for largish ISP's and large corporations who do a lot of
farming of their applications, being able to slice it up instead of
getting the whole hog would be preferable and make the entire exercise
worthwhile. I for one would certainly implement a lot faster with this
capability.
Regards,
Damon
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html