I would wordmith slightly as follows: - UNVERIFIED leads to a query to SSP. The results of the SSP query along with the message leads to a value of CONSISTENT or INCONSISTENT which together with the message will be fed to the reputation service to produce a result of ACCEPT or REJECT.
I would also caution that we should avoid thinking in imperative terms. If you have a large email processing infrastructure you are going to be relying on multiple levels of spam control. The first step in your spam control ladder is almost certainly going to be some form of lookup on the IP address to decide whether or not you will accept the inbound SMTP connection. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:01 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Scott Kitterman; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was > Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll) > > Phillip, > > To summarize some of this discussion, the chain of events is this: > > - The VERIFIED address perhaps along with the message is > used as input to whatever reputation system there is. The > reputation service will return a value of ACCEPT or REJECT > for each message. > - UNVERIFIED leads to a query to SSP. The results of the > SSP query along with the message will be fed to the > reputation service to produce a result of ACCEPT or REJECT. > > It is out of scope for this working group to try and guess > the special sauce in the reputation service, as I understand > it. The only question this leads to is whether the > unverified address is valuable without a valid DKIM > signature, and YMMV, especially in the beginning (like now). > > Eliot > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
