On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 07:58 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > John Levine wrote: > >>> But I have to say, without any sort of domain blanket/coverage > >>> option, it seems like something is really missing here. > > > > I'm seeing an implicit assumption that if someone has an opinion about > > mail from foo.com, they will have a similar opinion of mail from > > subdomains a.foo.com or a.b.foo.com, or a.b.c.foo.com. I've been > > thinking about the mail I actually see, and I am having great > > difficulty finding even a small set of real life scenarios where that > > is true. > > Good timing. I had started thinking about the fact that DKIM's d= parameter > allows differentiating among (sub) domain names. > > The premise is that these would have different reputations. The last thing > one wants for that is a mechanism that groups them all together.
It would be nice that some BCP says d= should be treated as an opaque value since I don't think the DKIM spec says such a thing. -- :: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies :: e-Dialog | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 :: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 :: www.e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
