-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:28 PM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt
Discardable/Exclusive
It's an assertion that the sender would prefer that the
recipient not deliver some small fraction of legitimate email
as well as some small fraction of illegitimate email, rather
than delivering those small fractions of legitimate and
illegitimate email.
I'm not sure that I would agree with framing it as "some small fraction
of illegitimate email". Tracking phishing attacks against our brands
since we have started signing, a receiver checking DKIM and/or SPF would
have easily identified 100% of those fraudulent emails.
In the senders opinion, it is more important that mail
claiming to be from them not be delivered than for it to be delivered.
I think a more appropriate phrasing would be:
"In the senders opinion, it is more important that mail claiming to be
from them and not conforming to certain parameters not be delivered than
for it to be delivered - even at the risk of some legitimate mail being
discarded."
The english meaning of "discardable" matches the semantics
pretty well. If we want implementors to easily understand and
deploy the specification, and more importantly the limits of
them doing so, thats fairly important.
Cheers,
Steve
Whatever we decide to call it, SSP should allow a reasonable range of
assertions from both 1st party domains as well as 3rd party domains. As
long as there is clarity of the intended meaning of the assertions I'm
comfortable that the marketplace of receivers will sort things out.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html