In reality, the recipient end DKIM deployment will be driven by
sysadmins representing end-users who want less bad mail to reach them.
Unlike the participating senders, they are not afraid of a phish or
virus mail succeeding --- they merely do not want to be disturbed unless
the mail is actually relevant.
My, aren't we cynical. You must know very different system managers than
the ones I talk to at MAAWG and other places. I wouldn't say they're
afraid of viruses and phishes, but they certainly want to keep them out of
recipient mailboxes.
I also second Murray's suggestion that if you think you can design
something better, please do so and write it up. But first you might want
to look at some of the signed bounce address proposals like this one, and
consider why nobody adopted them.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060909034948/ses.codeshare.ca/files/Working_SES_Format_Definition_16.html
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html