> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- > boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:07 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again > > On Thursday, May 26, 2011 03:21:19 PM Steve Atkins wrote: > > If the reputation of the MLM is poor enough that mail from it is not > being > > delivered, trumping that with an authors reputation may get > individual > > emails delivered - but not threads, so it doesn't really improve the > value > > provided to the recipient (it probably decreases it - a mailing list > that > > delivers one in ten posts to my inbox is less useful than one that > > delivers none at all). > > I think this has it rather backwards. If mail From (body From) a > certain > domain arrives 999 time with a valid DKIM signature and on the 1,000th > time it > arrives with either no signature or a broken one, then that's a > negative > anomaly in the mail stream that receivers are quite likely to take > notice of. > While ADSP is the public whipping boy for this, there are plenty of > private > efforts based on doing exactly this. > > The question isn't do I trust the ML or not. For domains with a non- > trivial > number of users the overall mail system will have no idea about what ML > should > be trusted or not. The question is how harshly do I treat this message > based > on the lack of a good signature. > > Scott K
The other piece of the equation is how often do I see abusive mail purporting to be from this domain with no signature while mail from this domain that is normally signed has no significant problems. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
