On Mar 22, 2009, at 12:06 PM, SM wrote: > I prefer not to get into arguments about abuse at this stage. I'll > also avoid comments about "i=" on this thread. As you agreed to my > sentence, maybe you might agree with some parts of John Levine's > message. If we could iron out points of agreement and disagreement, > it might help in moving forward.
Concerns related to assessor inputs are centered upon whether to use i= or d= vales. This overlooks the use of a two stage approach. The d= value results can signal a need for subsequently resolving intra-domain sources using i= values, for example. Making a series of assessments is fairly normal, especially when not doing so exposes receivers to high levels of undesired messages. Large domains are unable to perfectly vet outbound DKIM messages, where each message that is mistakenly signed can be replayed. When the intra-domain problematic sources are limited in number, feedback can be quick and effective. Secondary assessment results would not need to be retained longer than message expiry when the signing domain responds to their intra-domain sources being listed. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
