-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:02 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Authorizing List Domains
You have placed TPA information in a domain not below
"_domainkey.<signing-domain>". This increases the response size by 11
bytes with a trade-off of making delegations to signing mail providers
more difficult. I am open to either approach, however only DKIM makes
this scheme practical.
How does it make something more difficult?
At the same time, unless authorizations can defend against
likely abuse, that too would render efforts unusable. The additional
information also benefits the recipient when it simplifies their
process and increases the number of messages being properly marked for
rejection.
I don't really want to conduct an experiment that includes myriad optional
policy specifications without some operational data to suggest they stand a
chance of adoption. Simpler is better.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html