--On 23 November 2010 02:06:17 +0900 Tsuneki Ohnishi <ts...@infomania.co.jp> wrote:
> 5068 > Well, it's just a newbie's idea, so may be totally unacceptable. > But please understand that we're heavily committed. > Gotta find a way through. > My view is that this is a long term game. You can help by encouraging uptake of DKIM, and deploying domain based reputation engines. If your major public ISPs, corporate, and government sites make use of these things, then deliverability will be improved for legitimate mailers who deploy DKIM. You also need to encourage deployment of RFC5068, in order that sent emails are more likely to be properly routed through the relevant DKIM signing engines. <http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5068.html> I'd also suggest deploying SPF as a complimentary technology. Most email paths preserve either DKIM or SPF, even when one or other is not preserved. They both permit the use of domain based reputation engines, although the domains protected will not always be the same. Finally, promote the use of MTAs that can verify DKIM during the SMTP session. This way, messages can be rejected rather than discarded, if there's a problem. Rejection of messages at SMTP time permits the sender to be aware of problems with false positives. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html