Interesting replies. My apologies for my delayed response. I was off in
Vegas at defcon and intentionally not getting online for the duration.
While I don't believe that receivers would be particularly well served
by lowering reputation for unsigned emails or raising reputation for
those that are signed, it would certainly be useful if receivers took a
stronger stance in saying they are taking advantage of DKIM signatures
to track reputation. While in the past I have been primarily interested
in first party signing, I have been thinking about potential benefits of
our organization signing with a second signature so that we can use it
across properties.
Mike
________________________________
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Franck Martin
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 6:23 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] DKIM adoption
Looking at DKIM adoption. I have seen statements that some mailers will
do DKIM based reputation if available, but I have yet to see a statement
as either:
-an email not signed with DKIM will have its reputation lowered (less
likely to pass filters)
-an email signed with DKIM will have its reputation increased (more
likely to pass filters)
I think if there were some postmasters making such statement it would
boost the adoption of DKIM.
I think stating that some postmasters are moving to domain based
reputation is just encouraging the status quo of not DKIM signing to
stay in IP based reputation.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html