On Jan 28, 2008 10:18 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Something that we (us trench warfare guys) have always had to do. But passing off signing to a third party and not having to be in that business (unless it's a value add ;-) and not having to sully the reputation of the ISP as a whole is a far better solution in my eyes. > > 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? No objection on my part- but I think we could do better. >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? Certainly but for largish ISP's and large corporations who do a lot of farming of their applications, being able to slice it up instead of getting the whole hog would be preferable and make the entire exercise worthwhile. I for one would certainly implement a lot faster with this capability. Regards, Damon _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html