Perhaps his provider signs all outgoing mail regardless without having to parse a list of who signs their own mail locally. Daemon is also right, spam from bots inside his ISP space will be sending mail that is signed by the provider until they are stopped by the abuse department. Thanks,
Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications, Inc. Alpharetta GA 404-847-6397 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:12 AM To: Damon Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms Hi, Damon wrote: > I was having this discussion with someone off-list but... > > Where I live, I am serviced by only one ISP. I get a discount by having > my services (business, home, cell, internet, etc) bundled by this one > provider and they sign all my messages. Choosing another provider etc. > may not be financially agreeable. I also know that there are spammers or > bots on this provider that take enjoyment out of using my name. So I > want to say- Trust my signature but expressly distrust my providers > signature if not also signed by me. Both messages, mine and the spammers > are genuine and unchanged, signed by my provider, but only my signed > messages are valid. > I see this as a feature. I don't understand what the provider's signature is bringing to the party in this case. Why is: your signature plus a please-distrust-this-provider signature better than your signature alone? Stephen. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
