--- Earl Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any "accountability" should be explicitly defined.
In the negative sense, let me suggest that an accountable entity is one who can best stop the traffic if you don't want it. If we take a leap of faith that what you don't want is the content, then maybe the accountable entity is the one that creates the content rather than a player who is merely part of the process of delivering it to your mailbox - under your instructions? > So you are saying that organizations like CPAN, SourceForge, Savannah, > college alumni, et. al., will now have to spend resources dealing > with abuse complaints and the other things that come with signing > DKIM messages? Even if these entities do not originate the messages > themselves, but just function as a "hop" during transmission? That would be my inclination. Does your secondary MX handle complaints from your primary MX? What about your MX hosting service that arbitrarily forwards all mail for your domain to a nominated ISP mailbox? To me it's like call-forwarding on your phone. If you get a phone call you don't want, are you going to blame your call-forwarding service for doing the job you asked them to do? Mark. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
