On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 20:29 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Douglas Otis wrote: > > > DKIM should verify a domain that can be held accountable for stopping > > abusive messages. (It would be nice for the recipient to see who is > > accountable.) However, displaying the accountable domain is not needed > > and should not be attempted with feeble header bindings. With DKIM, > > administrators can ensure bad actors are excluded. With DKIM, creating > > a list of trusted domains will exclude most of the emails which need > > greater examination. > > > So, given that view, as a sender, what's in it for me? > > Sounds like all I get is more spam reports and maybe on a domain based > blacklist if someone doesn't like my mail? What benifit is being > offered that I should risk that?
With DKIM, a small list of trusted signing domains will exclude most emails which need greater examination. The level of support to maintain this type of trusted list would be less than the traditional IP address white-list. By not binding the signing domain with the mailbox-address, there can be greater consolidation which further improves the leverage of such a list. Those implementing DKIM could benefit by this rather practical use. Complaints directed to those permitting access will benefit the industry in general, and again provide greater acceptance with DKIM as the basis. When MUAs eventually display the signing domain, this should also be to signing domain's benefit. Aspects of the message content may become beneficiaries of a domain binding later, but should not be included in initial offering to ensure fewer operational issues. -Doug _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
