> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:dkim-ops- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Hector Santos > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:29 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] hammering with a soldering iron, was subdomain > vs. cousin domain > > If anything Murray, traceability - verifiers and assessors would know > who is the responsible signer and it isn't the principle author domain.
Has that been shown yet to be important at receivers? Are there any current implementations with data to show that this is a useful thing to track? I'm happy to believe that it is important, but so far all I've seen is a lot of argument over theory and not much real data. > In the advent of this anticipated new reputation scoring market, it > would be the primary domain at risk - not the passive 3PS service. > The 3PS domain is protected from harm while collecting the bucks. :) Is that theory, or is that data? > But the more we > deemphasize policy, the more pressure we have to keep broken > signatures for "reputation" or heuristic assessors and worst, design > pressures to consider the even more drastic changing the 5322.From to > match the last signer in the mail path either because of ADSP or to > provide the "positive appearance of 1st party mail." I don't think the goal is to de-emphasize policy. I suspect lots of us would like to see that capability. But the systems we're using today have limitations and entrenched history we can't simply ignore for the sake of convenience. Moreover, it would be completely silly to roll out a standards track policy specification before there's experimental data to back up the notion that it will work. In essence we're practically busting at the seams to deliver information to verifiers when we don't know if that information is even a little bit interesting to them. _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
