Michael Thomas:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > MH Michael Hammer (5304):
> >> Is DKIM checking sufficient in itself without SSP? How might DKIM-SSP
> >> help receivers (the 3 aforementioned as well as others) leverage their
> >> evaluation of received email whether signed (valid or not) or unsigned?
> >
> > "known to be good" whitelisting can be done with DKIM-BASE alone.
> >
> > SSP etc. is about the ABSENCE of valid signatures, and can help to
> > strengthen the "known to be good" whitelisting process.
>
> You've said this several times, but I don't think that's the range
> of all possibilities. Ag.com is a pretty good example of somebody
> that I as a receiver don't know but if they're willing to say
> "discard this if it's not signed", all other things being equal
> why wouldn't I?
You do what you want to do.
I would hope that receivers don't discard mail simply because the
domain owner says so. Instead, I would hope that their hint goes
into a weighting process together with other indicators.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
