ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call

2009-03-08 21:05:18
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:58 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) 
<MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com> wrote:
Suresh, notwithstanding what some vendors might wish in terms of
reputation, the case for ADSP is and always has been to leverage DKIM to
be able to say "this domain signs all mail" in one way or another.

That seems like an overly complex, rube goldbergish way to indicate
it.  More like developing spf, with your sole reason being to publish
"v=spf1 -all" indicating that a domain never sends email.

And it is still not something I would trust without confirmation and
verification out of band (this, having noticed more than one wrong spf
declaration that if we'd bothered to check on in our mailserver, would
have resulted in lost mail)

Further, at least from my perspective, it is not something I would
bother to check for all but a few significant domains.

--srs
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>