Actually my customers usually have an IP that is within my domain. So if foo.com signs without an SSP statement, software could determine that joebob.com belongs to that IP range set that foo.com owns. In that case resposibility for the message is set. thanks, Bill
-----Original Message----- From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 1/28/2008 10:18 AM To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta) Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP I'd like to voice my support for Bill's position, notwithstanding #1360 from a year ago. The reality is that many smaller domain owners rely on their ISP or some other service provider to deal with the "under-the-hood" stuff. The cname suggestion is interesting but I haven't had time to think it through. Bill and anybody else who is responsible for outbound mail knows that they are going to get dinged - signed or not - if they don't address issues caused by mail coming from their system. If Bill is willing to sign and wants a stronger statement made by SSP that the domain uses his DKIM signature, where is the technical objection? It indicates the From domains signing policy and makes it easier for a receiver to more clearly ascertain a party that wants to take responsibility for the message. Isn't that the object of the exercise? Mike >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:01 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP > >"Bill, from now on, if you have a >spammer who gets an account, I am going to hold you and your >entire ISP responsible... I know you did it, I have your >signature right here." >Would you care for a list of largish mail systems/ISP's that >do that now? > > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
