>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins >Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:28 PM >To: DKIM List >Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt >Discardable/Exclusive > > >It's an assertion that the sender would prefer that the >recipient not deliver some small fraction of legitimate email >as well as some small fraction of illegitimate email, rather >than delivering those small fractions of legitimate and >illegitimate email. >
I'm not sure that I would agree with framing it as "some small fraction of illegitimate email". Tracking phishing attacks against our brands since we have started signing, a receiver checking DKIM and/or SPF would have easily identified 100% of those fraudulent emails. >In the senders opinion, it is more important that mail >claiming to be from them not be delivered than for it to be delivered. > I think a more appropriate phrasing would be: "In the senders opinion, it is more important that mail claiming to be from them and not conforming to certain parameters not be delivered than for it to be delivered - even at the risk of some legitimate mail being discarded." >The english meaning of "discardable" matches the semantics >pretty well. If we want implementors to easily understand and >deploy the specification, and more importantly the limits of >them doing so, thats fairly important. > >Cheers, > Steve > Whatever we decide to call it, SSP should allow a reasonable range of assertions from both 1st party domains as well as 3rd party domains. As long as there is clarity of the intended meaning of the assertions I'm comfortable that the marketplace of receivers will sort things out. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
