On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Douglas Otis wrote:
Your fix will not control phishing or spoofing abuse and would expose
these domains to open-ended sources.
ADSP reforms along my lines would not create any additional exposure,
because they are only intended for senderside deployment by sites that
are currently entirely naked.
The availability of weak ADSP declarations would actually increase the
protection afforded by "dkim=discardable", because then fewer domains
would go without ADSP, and more MX administrators would be incentivized to
implement and arm it.
Remember, for an MX admin the goal is not to "control phishing". That's
just a side benefit of their true goal, to "control forgeries". When
forgery can be reliably detected, it becomes a low-false-positive noise
filter, something every MX admin loves.
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html