On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > Looking at DKIM adoption. I have seen statements that some mailers > will do DKIM based reputation if available, but I have yet to see a > statement as either: > -an email not signed with DKIM will have its reputation lowered > (less likely to pass filters) > -an email signed with DKIM will have its reputation increased (more > likely to pass filters) > > I think if there were some postmasters making such statement it > would boost the adoption of DKIM.
I doubt that either is true, though. A DKIM signature allows you to acquire increased or decreased reputation based on the history of that signing token. If I've never seen that token before, or I've seen bad behaviour associated with that token, it's not going to increase the reputation of the email (not in any sane mail filtering system anyway). Conversely, if I see unsigned mail coming in from an IP address that's sent great mail forever, I'm not going to decimate the mail stream just to encourage DKIM adoption. Might there be a grey area where the existence of a DKIM signature just pushes it over the edge? Maybe, but it's going to be a pretty small grey area. > I think stating that some postmasters are moving to domain based > reputation is just encouraging the status quo of not DKIM signing to > stay in IP based reputation. And there's nothing wrong with that. People should be moving to DKIM because of the actual advantages, not because of that sort of artificial pressure on them, I think. Requiring DKIM before setting up an FBL or a red carpet seems a more reasonable sort of pressure for an ISP to apply, should they feel so inclined. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
