On Sep 9, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of McDowell, Brett >> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 9:51 AM >> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] subdomain vs. cousin domain (when deploying >> "discardable") >> >>> 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)? > > It certainly is an option, and it would certainly work. But personally, I > reserve use of the words "best practice" for things that have been shown to > work better than all other options. I don't know that that's been measured > yet. >
Good point... I figured someone would say it :-) _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
