On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:57:43AM -0400, Hector Santos wrote: > Jeff Macdonald wrote: > > >> I also hadn't realized that DKIM was strictly meant to benefit >> receivers. > > Did you really think DKIM will alter the deeply embedded mail filtering > landscape? :-) >
Like you at one time said, I was hoping for a deterministic result. ;) <snip> > For us to even bother signing mail, we have to have some SSP assurance that > receivers are going to DUMP forged mail. Otherwise, to me, there is no > payoff - but just glorified worthless overhead. I haven't had a chance to read the SSP doc, but I heard it uses i= for that case. -- :: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies :: e-Dialog | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 :: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 :: www.e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
