>> Hector wrote:
>>
>> The fallacy in the "common use case" opinion stated above is
>> that it has limited insight and is based on the idea that
>> most domains may wish to be part of a 3rd party Bulk mailer
>> system or will part of a prior 3rd party agreement or have a
>> inherent TOS with 3rd party signers.
J D Falk wrote:
> That's not quite what we had in mind. As I see it, 3rd party
> signing is only acceptable when the domain owner wants to permit
> it -- so if there's no agreement, the entire discussion of 3rd
> party signing is irrelevant.
This sounds like an OPT-OUT signing model.
So why do you advocate an inherent "policy and mandate" against allowing
a domain owners (and the key words is owners) the option and flexibility
to opt out with a global declaration -
"I don't expect 3rd party signatures in my direct 1 to 1
private email communications with my target recipients."
--
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