"Scenario B is technically possible but makes no sense. If you have the ability to sign mail, why wouldn't you sign your own?" because this is a special purpose domain simply to manage 3rd party signage, the domain itself will not send any mail. Saying I only sign 3rd party would allow people to regard any purported mail from that domain with a large degree of suspicion thanks,
What am I missing here?Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications, Inc. Alpharetta GA 404-847-6397 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: John L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:55 AM To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: 3rd party signing >> It may well be true that you only sign third party mail, but I still >> don't understand what use a recipient might make of that information. >> If they get unwanted mail from someone and you've signed it, they'll >> complain to you regardless. > A recipient will then have a valid party to complain to which is better > than blocking a domain that has been spoofed. I still don't understand the scenario. Let's call the domain isp.com. Is it: A) No mail has an isp.com From: address, but mail with other From: addresses may have an isp.com signature. B) Mail goes out with From: addresses at isp.com, but none of it is signed. Mail with other From: addresses may have an isp.com signature. C) something else. Scenario A is "we send no mail," with the possibility of third party signatures on other mail being irrelevant. Like I said, if you sign it, you'll get the complaints no matter what your SSP says. Scenario B is technically possible but makes no sense. If you have the ability to sign mail, why wouldn't you sign your own? What am I missing here? R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
