Douglas Otis wrote:
>> I also worry about the expectation of lists looking at
>> policy - it's going to be many many years before a signer
>> can expect their policy to be looked at by a significant
>> majority of list s/w. In the intervening years they will
>> be able to advertise as restrictive policy as they like
>> and it will mostly be disappointed at the outcome.
> Agreed. The time frame before using separate email policy
> could be very long. It may be faster to include the policy
> directly within the signature, where caching would not demand
> additional network/time related overhead.
Good idea for valid signatures. For the "closed" policies I'd
guess that SPF would offer an accelerator. Receivers checking
SPF won't need to lookup any SSP separately. Scott proposed a
scheme where they could simply ignore the SPF policy if they
found a promise that there MUST be a valid DKIM signature: If
that's not the case they reject the mail at the end of DATA.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
