On Wednesday 16 January 2008 12:24, J D Falk wrote: > > I fail to see why we should create an RFC only working for PayPal & > > Co. - especially while they are still too timid to use FAIL in their > > SPF or PRA policies. SSP "first author" > > would be far more restrictive than anything SPF or PRA do. > > It's very interesting that while PayPal may be "too timid to use FAIL in > their SPF or PRA policies," they /have/ -- with much public fanfare -- > made deals with Yahoo! and other ISPs to reject any messages that can't > be verified with DomainKeys or DKIM. > > There'll surely be more of these 1:1 agreements, while we wait for SSP > to become useful. If we wait long enough, SSP won't even be necessary > for the big, high-value signers & verifiers. >
Agreed. It's much better to define a protocol to do this now so the process scales and is not just available to large commercial senders. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
