Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr-00 (fwd)

2010-07-27 Thread J.D. Falk
On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: A vouching service is unlikely to offer a fix either. How would a vouching service know better than the Author Domain? They wouldn't, so a smart vouching service would be working WITH the author domain to get it right. But that's a business

Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr-00 (fwd)

2010-07-27 Thread Douglas Otis
On 7/27/10 9:36 AM, J.D. Falk wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: A vouching service is unlikely to offer a fix either. How would a vouching service know better than the Author Domain? They wouldn't, so a smart vouching service would be working WITH the author

Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr-00 (fwd)

2010-07-27 Thread J.D. Falk
On Jul 27, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Douglas Otis wrote: Companies are good at shooting themselves in the foot in respect to helping bad actors phish. (blush) The other foot injury involves their email being rejected or discarded. Unfortunately, these two goals are in conflict when making ADSP

Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr-00 (fwd)

2010-07-27 Thread John Levine
Mailing lists are a separate issue. I don't think it's helpful for a 3rd party to vouch that lists are lists, and that's not what John's draft does. The goal of my draft was to provide a way publish lists of domains for which there is a net benefit to the recipient from dropping unsigned mail.