On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Hector Santos wrote: > > With specific reference to DKIM, what I most want to discourage is > > awful IP/domain hybrid hacks like only validating a signature if > > the Sender-ID or SPF passes. So our interop advice is when you're > > thinking about DKIM, don't think about IP addresses. > > Sorry, but vendors do not have this luxury. You would be in conflict > with your operators and customers desires to implement, enable and/or > disable what they want and not what you or I want.
Your customers don't seek or accept any guidance from you? > We simple can not dictate to others or even suggest not to use SPF or > another technology and replace with DKIM especially when it hasn't > really proven to have a payoff. Sorry, I disagree. Vendors, especially those who have been involved in this for a long time, are in a prime position to provide appropriate guidance and influence. And at least from where I'm sitting, a substantial portion of the customer base is at least listening to what we tell them. And sometimes "customer" is itself referring to a large and influential ISP. > So yes, when I read those comments, the eyes are rolling. I have no doubt *you* think the ideas are absurd. But please stop speaking for all SMTP vendors, because I for one think you're exaggerating, and have experience to the contrary. Perhaps some other vendors would like to weigh in. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
