On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 08:48 -0400, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > > Even when a client has both of these, blocks/'missing mail'/'bulk > folder placement' still happen. > > Currently system don't seem to take past reputation into > consideration. For instance, a customer could have a great reputation > for months or years, then one day, some one goofs (either the sender > or the receiver) and a block or placement into the bulk folder > happens.
Are you saying that by signing the message someone may decide to block your messages, whereas without signing they won't? It is not easy to assess DKIM related behavior simply because the envelope is not included within the signature. Signed messages sent to the wrong entity could be sent by anyone, including your competitor. Even a desired domain like Yahoo! will sign spammy messages that can be resent from elsewhere. Once anyone decides the DKIM signature can be used to control spam, will quickly discover it will not work either as a sole basis for acceptance or rejection. DKIM might be used to allow bulk-senders to bypass filters that might otherwise trip based upon their volume of identical messages. DKIM will clearly identify an initial source of a spammy message for reporting purposes. DKIM use in conjunction with retained email-addresses can also provide excellent anti-spoofing protections. As a result DKIM should: - Improve the open rates of valid messages. - Reduce the success rates of criminal fraud. - Improve the accurate performance of message filters. - Not modify a signer's reputation based upon wrong recipients.(goofs) Due to liabilities when using a DKIM as a basis for name based reputations, such will likely be limited to identifying clearly criminal behaviors, not goof rates. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
