--On 14 October 2009 15:39:12 -0400 hector <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Otis wrote: > >> On 10/14/09 10:51 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > >>> All of which begs the basic question of why this thread is being >>> pursued? The questions and answers aren't new. >> >> Good question. >> >> While email reputation has managed to retain a semblance of email >> functionality, this often results in more than 90% of the email stream >> being refused. These refusals are often based upon the reputation of >> the IP address used by SMTP clients. >> >> DKIM offers an opportunity to leverage names as a mechanism for >> acceptance and to authorize third-party domains that might act on behalf >> of the Author Domain without formal arrangements. The authorization >> could be done in a safe and economical manner to allow Author Domains a >> means to benefit from the other domains reputation and services, and to >> better ensure messages are accepted. > > +1. +2 > However, I think the answer is Dave is seeking is evidence of problems > which in his mind because RFC 5617 is only a standard by name and not > supported by anyone, there is no problem. I guess that is only > possible if indeed RFC 5617 will never be used by anyone. It may never be. But, it's relatively new, so it doesn't surprise me that it's not in use. However, It's also not surprising that people who may use the RFCs wish to understand the implications, and explore the problems before implementing. > == > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
