On 9/9/10 9:51 AM, McDowell, Brett wrote: > Mike, I appreciate all the comments you shared in your last response. I'm > replying to only one of them because I think this may be the consensus "best > practice" I was looking for. > > On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:36 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > >> The general rule would be to use a different domain that is >> far enough from the transactional/brand domain that the risk of use for >> enduser phishing is mitigated. > Does everyone agree that this is the "best practice" for the use case > provided (ignoring I only gave you two namespace options)? > Brett,
Until more comprehensive policy becomes available, yes. In general, using a cousin domain is a bad practice, where the term "far" has not been met by your current practice. It may have been better to have used something like your stock symbol instead. Such a change will be painful, and likely of little benefit, since users will have been exposed to spoofing to a point where they should be wary of cousin domains. Then again, there is always the next generation to consider, assuming they will still be using email. -Doug _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
