I'd like to voice my support for Bill's position, notwithstanding #1360 from a year ago.
The reality is that many smaller domain owners rely on their ISP or some other service provider to deal with the "under-the-hood" stuff. The cname suggestion is interesting but I haven't had time to think it through. Bill and anybody else who is responsible for outbound mail knows that they are going to get dinged - signed or not - if they don't address issues caused by mail coming from their system. If Bill is willing to sign and wants a stronger statement made by SSP that the domain uses his DKIM signature, where is the technical objection? It indicates the From domains signing policy and makes it easier for a receiver to more clearly ascertain a party that wants to take responsibility for the message. Isn't that the object of the exercise? Mike >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:01 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org >Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP > >"Bill, from now on, if you have a >spammer who gets an account, I am going to hold you and your >entire ISP responsible... I know you did it, I have your >signature right here." >Would you care for a list of largish mail systems/ISP's that >do that now? > > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
