On 10/14/09 10:51 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
You're trying very hard to infer something that was not stated or implied in
either what Dave said above or in the specs themselves.
In general, people are trying very hard to infer something from DKIM
signatures and from ADSP that simply can't be safely inferred from the
protocols as they have been defined so far.
...
Some constructive work would be really helpful here rather than all this
fist-pounding
All of which begs the basic question of why this thread is being pursued? The
questions and answers aren't new.
Good question.
While email reputation has managed to retain a semblance of email
functionality, this often results in more than 90% of the email stream
being refused. These refusals are often based upon the reputation of
the IP address used by SMTP clients.
DKIM offers an opportunity to leverage names as a mechanism for
acceptance and to authorize third-party domains that might act on behalf
of the Author Domain without formal arrangements. The authorization
could be done in a safe and economical manner to allow Author Domains a
means to benefit from the other domains reputation and services, and to
better ensure messages are accepted.
While DKIM is still in the early deployment stages and has not served
much as an acceptance vehicle, over a comparatively short period of
time, inclusion of IPv6 addresses will likely make ferreting out bad
actors based upon an IP address less practical. In addition, the IPv4
crunch is also likely to cause a greater level of sharing of outbound
SMTP servers which will then emit a mixture of good and not so good
messages. By providing a lightweight authorization scheme to bolster
the use of DKIM policy assertions, this should help establish
relationships between domains and to better help guide acceptance
decisions upon a domain by-name basis.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html