Frank Ellermann wrote: > If I can't use "my" [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or similar vanity host > [EMAIL PROTECTED] constructs) whereever it pleases me > in a mail header, then it's not more good enough, and I'd > find a better ISP. The mail header is user territory. The > limit for this "hostage" issue is the MAIL FROM from my POV. > (And for the "errors-to" fraction that's already insane)
It is worth noting that this scenario relies on ISPs that either do not do DKIM signing or utilize relaxed policies. So, you either have the case where DKIM will not be the norm for all email or relaxed policies become the norm, reducing the effectiveness of DKIM. The key question is, "Who 'owns' the mailbox address and the allowable uses of it?". DKIM may cause a power shift from mailbox users to domain owners by giving the ability for domain owners to assert tight controls on mailbox addresses under their domains, something not easily done currently. This gives the ability of domains to alter the usability of email and deny operations that are currently allowed. For some businesses (like the mybank example that has been raised), such restrictions are desirable, and probably justifiable. But if ISPs and other email service providers adopt EXCLUSIVE policies... --ewh _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
