Dave CROCKER wrote: > > Jim Fenton wrote: >> I'm (obviously) not as much of a fatalist when it comes using dkim=all. I >> believe there are things that one can usefully do, such as to "raise the bar" >> on content filtering, if a message fails a dkim=all ADSP. > > Jim, > > What you write sounds great. Unfortunately, I have no idea what its software > or > operations impact could or should be. > > This isn't about being a fatalist; it is about protocol semantics and whether > non-participating intermediaries experience a failure that is not their fault.
+1 > If we are to assert conclusions of operational effect or non-effect, we need > to > be very careful that it is based on reasonable methodology. That you are not > (yet) experiencing a problem by publishing an =all doesn't mean much if, for > example, virtually no receivers are looking for an ADSP record and/or > virtually > no receivers are making handling decisions based on ADSP records. +1 > > Before you report your personal experiences, could you include data about the > receivers, please? Why is proper professional engineering simulation excluded? Not everything needs to be put into production to have an engineering conclusion what is proper methodology. -- HLS _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
