On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 04:46 +, Mark Delany wrote:
That's a matter between the I sign all and the list. I would say
that if it hurts, don't do it.
No, the sensible user will accept all the mail from the list. With
Well maybe, but that's not the intent of my style of I sign all.
So let's settle on the 1, 2 or 3 statements with a sufficiently broad
and strong consensus to make it clear that we should standardize them,
and be done with it (for now.)
The two that I vote for are:
+1. This is exactly what we should do in my view. Also make the
protocol extensible and
I sign all: Your users and my business may be harmed by accepting
unverified mail claiming to originate from my domain. It is in our
mutual interest for you to not deliver such mail to your users.
I am an adult of voting age and accept the possibility that
deliverability of my traffic may
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Delany [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The default assumption of a listed domain in the policy would be to
assume I sign all. This could even be called the I sign all list.
The only embellishment needed would be the Only. The
That's a pretty reasonable question, frankly. The set of domains that
would actually benefit from SSP from the consensus I've seen seems like
it's a pretty tiny fraction of the internet at large and almost
certainly could be handled by third party dnsbl-like or accreditation
schemes as well.
- Original Message -
From: John L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's a pretty reasonable question, frankly. The set of domains that
would actually benefit from SSP from the consensus I've seen seems like
it's a pretty tiny fraction of the internet at
I sign all: Your users and my business may be harmed by accepting
unverified mail claiming to originate from my domain. It is in our
mutual interest for you to not deliver such mail to your users.
I am an adult of voting age and accept the possibility that
deliverability of my traffic may reduce
On Aug 5, 2006, at 1:42 PM, John L wrote:
That's a pretty reasonable question, frankly. The set of domains
that would actually benefit from SSP from the consensus I've seen
seems like it's a pretty tiny fraction of the internet at large
and almost certainly could be handled by third party
Your assertion in the subject is an opinion. I find the statement below
to be useful.
I think we have a subtle point here.
I sign everything so please discard unsigned mail apparently from me
could be useful to recipients.
Plain I sign everything isn't.
R's,
John
-Original
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, Hector Santos wrote:
Agreed. That's what I've been thinking all along.
In other words, your 3rd party dnsbl-like DAC business venture with some
highly exploitable VBR protocol, with $10,000, $5000 entry feeds, with
absolutely no plans for SSP, is the right solution for
Douglas Otis wrote:
An another policy that might be considered would be one for the DKIM
client
I'm sorry, I have no idea what a dkim client is. Can you in as few of
words as
possible tell me what that is?
Mike, rather burned out on these threads
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 04:57:23PM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
John L wrote:
Your assertion in the subject is an opinion. I find the statement below
to be useful.
I think we have a subtle point here.
I sign everything so please discard unsigned mail apparently from me
John does have business interests in commercial accreditation services,
however I think he in general somehow does not like policy records
It's true, I don't, and I've been trying to figure out why not. It
finally came to me: senders are not the right people to judge their own
importance.
Well, some extremely useful information here. Thank you, I was starting
to wonder. Now lets try the other case
if you are running the parlous operating system that shall not be named
for fear of dudgeous lawsuits beware of mails that look like mine that
are not, and don't come whining to me
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly
Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.
Hector. Most of us on this list are in the email business - including
you - as I understand it. If we start slinging arrows at anyone who
has a business connection, most
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, John L wrote:
In no way does accreditation=DKIM
But policy records are in a way. Lets look at it in general -
policy record is just a statement of what sender believes to
be true about their email system setup and how receiver can
use the email..
Accreditation is
Mark Delany wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 06:06:59PM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
Seriously. SSP can be entirely useful when stated in terms of the sender's
perspective. It does not need to pretend that is knows enough to give
directions to an evaluator.
Sorry for being
Mark Delany wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly
Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.
Hector. Most of us on this list are in the email business - including
you - as I understand it. If we start slinging arrows at anyone who
has
On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly
Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.
Hector. Most of us on this list are in the email business - including
you - as I understand
Bill,
Actually, IMV, the POLICY is the easiest part because that is already define
by the potential DKIM-BASE may exhibit.
It will be the engineering to get it done properly that may ultimately tell
us of the feasbiliity of it all which I am 100% capability of accepting way
away or another.
No,
20 matches
Mail list logo
