Michael Thomas:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Ain't nothing wrong with this approach. If someone wants to zero out
> > the other indicators, it's up to them. I for one will want to
> > consider reputation of the sender along with SSP results (to say the
> > very least). The rest of this thread seems to me moot based on the
> > current direction of SSP-02.
>
> Well I think that's perfectly prudent too. What I was reacting to is this
> notion that I have to "know" the domain in question to assign those
> weights -- whatever it means to "know". The ag example is a good
> one where I'm nearly certain that I don't "know" them <= layer 7, but
> I'm happy having them give me SSP advice for those layers to act on.
> I don't need to have some prior relationship with them to make that
> negative assertion be useful.
I admit, the "need to know" is mainly for whitelisting, which I
view as the primary purpose of DKIM and what's built on top of it.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
