Dave CROCKER wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
I'm (obviously) not as much of a fatalist when it comes using dkim=all. I
believe there are things that one can usefully do, such as to "raise the bar"
on content filtering, if a message fails a dkim=all ADSP.
Jim,
What you write sounds great. Unfortunately, I have no idea what its software
or
operations impact could or should be.
This isn't about being a fatalist; it is about protocol semantics and whether
non-participating intermediaries experience a failure that is not their fault.
+1
If we are to assert conclusions of operational effect or non-effect, we need
to
be very careful that it is based on reasonable methodology. That you are not
(yet) experiencing a problem by publishing an =all doesn't mean much if, for
example, virtually no receivers are looking for an ADSP record and/or
virtually
no receivers are making handling decisions based on ADSP records.
+1
Before you report your personal experiences, could you include data about the
receivers, please?
Why is proper professional engineering simulation excluded? Not
everything needs to be put into production to have an engineering
conclusion what is proper methodology.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html