--On 23 November 2010 02:06:17 +0900 Tsuneki Ohnishi
<tsune(_at_)infomania(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp> wrote:
5068
Well, it's just a newbie's idea, so may be totally unacceptable.
But please understand that we're heavily committed.
Gotta find a way through.
My view is that this is a long term game. You can help by encouraging
uptake of DKIM, and deploying domain based reputation engines. If your
major public ISPs, corporate, and government sites make use of these
things, then deliverability will be improved for legitimate mailers who
deploy DKIM.
You also need to encourage deployment of RFC5068, in order that sent emails
are more likely to be properly routed through the relevant DKIM signing
engines. <http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5068.html>
I'd also suggest deploying SPF as a complimentary technology. Most email
paths preserve either DKIM or SPF, even when one or other is not preserved.
They both permit the use of domain based reputation engines, although the
domains protected will not always be the same.
Finally, promote the use of MTAs that can verify DKIM during the SMTP
session. This way, messages can be rejected rather than discarded, if
there's a problem. Rejection of messages at SMTP time permits the sender to
be aware of problems with false positives.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html