Mike, I think it depends on the prevalence of DKIM and the parameters of the reputation service, which is out of scope and cannot be standardized.
Eliot Michael Thomas wrote: > Stephen Farrell wrote: > > If a domain owner publishes an open policy, and if some "bad" > > unsigned messages apparently emanate from that domain then the > > domain owner's reputation may suffer. > > Why would any rational reputation system make such an assertion? > It is as stupid as holding domain holders responsible in the > absense of dkim or some other identification mechanism: the > domain holder has no way to prevent it. If this is a threat, > then so is "receivers may trash DKIM-signed messages just because > they feel like it", which is true but useless. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > ietf-dkim mailing list > http://dkim.org > _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
