Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Hector Santos wrote:
And as long as this mindset persist, you are going to get the funny
looks from many disciplines in this market - mainly SMTP vendors!
I represent an SMTP vendor, and I'm not sending funny looks. I'm
pleased with these developments, and I concur with the stated guidance.
Just to make sure of the specifics my comments addressed:
> Levine stated:
> With specific reference to DKIM, what I most want to discourage is
> awful IP/domain hybrid hacks like only validating a signature if
> the Sender-ID or SPF passes. So our interop advice is when you're
> thinking about DKIM, don't think about IP addresses.
Sorry, but vendors do not have this luxury. You would be in conflict
with your operators and customers desires to implement, enable and/or
disable what they want and not what you or I want.
As a vendor, you have a choice to either built it in, as you do with
mfilters, as we do with our pcode language as other packages have with
their embedded languages. Operators and 3rd party developers can also
create these add-ons either for their specific sites or sell/give away
for others us, free or otherwise.
We simple can not dictate to others or even suggest not to use SPF or
another technology and replace with DKIM especially when it hasn't
really proven to have a payoff.
So yes, when I read those comments, the eyes are rolling.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html