On 06/24/2010 09:28 AM, J.D. Falk wrote: > On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > >> Any service that doesn't have an *explicit* guarantee from the mail >> domain itself that it signs all mail is worse than incompetent, >> it's harmful. A third party can *never* prove the negative that the >> domain in question doesn't have sources of unsigned mail that they >> don't want discarded. The domain in question without a thorough >> audit probably doesn't have a clue itself if it's even vaguely >> largeish. >> >> So why does a domain that performs that painful audit and >> remediation need to then tell John's drop list that it's OK to >> drop unsigned mail? It doesn't. It can just publish an ADSP >> record and be done with it. No need to count on some unreliable, >> unaccountable point of failure to mediate their business. > > Why do you keep assuming that John's proof-of-concept drop list is the only > way a drop list can ever operate?
So what is incorrect about what I wrote? Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
