On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
From: "Steve Atkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Even when it decreases overall deliverability? That is to say,
causes legitimate email to be treated as forgeries and, likely,
discarded.
The fraudulent mail covered are for 0% FALSE POSTIVES. Absolutely
No FUZZY LOGIC. If it was fuzzy, I personally wouldn't wasting my
time anymore here.
When a domain signs all of their outbound messages and makes a
statement as such, there are still common services that might be
employed. Strict adherence to an expectation of a message always
having a policy conformant signature where policy does not permit an
exception for these services will cause those services to be rejected
or discarded. Many would view such rejection as representing a false
positive, when the message was legitimately issued on behalf of the
From domain.
An option is needed to indicate whether other messages without valid
signatures might be from valid sources acting on behalf of domain
issuing the policy. Dealing with email that allows this exception
will be less black and white. An expectation that all messages must
be signed by designated domains will not supplant the need to handle
abusive messages from bad actors, and at the same time will increase
the number of support calls.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
