That might be interesting data, if you can share it. --- Sent from my mobile phone
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Douglas Otis <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/9/10 11:42 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> On Behalf Of Douglas Otis >>> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:16 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] subdomain vs. cousin domain (when deploying >>> "discardable") >>> >>> On 9/9/10 9:51 AM, McDowell, Brett wrote: >>>> Does everyone agree that this is the "best practice" for the use case >>>> provided (ignoring I only gave you two namespace options)? >>> 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. [...] >> Are there any recorded data supporting that assertion? >> > We experienced an increase in phishing when our marketing department > decided to use cousin domains to promote new products. This left us > dealing with a greater number of complaints from users confused by what > they had installed. Unfortunately, there is an entire industry devoted > to taking advantage of user confusion. > > -Doug > _______________________________________________ > dkim-ops mailing list > [email protected] > http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
