On 9/8/10 11:23 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: > No, I'm suggesting that they publish an explicit dkim=unknown if that is > their intent. It seems unlikely dkim=unknown will support their goal of ensuring most phishing attempts are blocked. It also seems unlikely this assertion will override rules intent on eliminating subdomain spoofing not otherwise handled by ADSP dkim=discardable.
The TPA-Label draft attempted to avoid the dilemma created by dkim=discardable in respect to normal email use and its undefined handling of subdomains. IMHO, their best choice is likely to keep their corporate domain separate from their web presence and its transactional email. If they do follow your advice, their results would prove informative for others. -Doug _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
