----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Otis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 07:48 -0400, Hector Santos wrote: >> >> I would rather use direct correlations and real operational >> history based on similar concepts such as SPF, to have enough >> insight to see history will repeat itself here with DKIM >> using neutral policies or NO SSP (therefore NEUTRAL by default). > Most major ISPs request neutral handling when their SPF records > do not match the client. For some this was not good enough, and > they even requested positive handling. > > While reasons for a DKIM signature failure will be different, they > will persist just as they have with SPF. If history offers > guidance, it would be to NOT request handling except in > exigent situations. And what are those "Exigent Situations?" In principle, I disagree with the assertion that we are not offering new ways to filter mail. I'm a realist. That is exactly how it is going to be used. Whether it is standard SSP, non-standard proprietary REPUTATION schemes, Heuristics, Classification, Neural Nets methods, etc, its all about the same thing - Query Dissemination. Its a long establish science. While it is true the industry has evolved with legacy operations for which there is little to do about the exploitations, and for the most part receivers followed a fail-safe philosophy, with DKIM-SSP, we would be evolving beyond legacy operations and therefore a new level of expectations with new protocol attributes that allows signers and receivers to leverage. Hopefully, towards their benefit and not the benefit of the exploiters. In short, if you do something that will move you into a new category, then we are no longer talking about the inadequacies of 20+ years old legacy operation. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
