Scott Kitterman wrote: > > "John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> It's not clear to me that there's consensus that anything qualifies as Best >>> Current. We have some small samples of a few things that some people have >>> tried, but I don't sense we're there yet. >> I hope that lists signing their outbound mail qualifies. Large >> providers Googlegroups and Yahoogroups do it, small providers >> including MAAWG and myself also do. >> >> Beyond that, you're right, we're at best guessing and at worst pulling >> stuff out of our whatevers.
> Which brings us back to the question of the value of the DKIM working > group writing an RFC that suggests people should sign mail. I don't think > it has much. There only seems to be SSA (special signing arrangements) and Receiver Policies utility i.e. yahoo. > I think an experimental document that amounts to something like "We've > thought about this a lot and discussed it and collectively we've got NFC > yet what's best yet. Here are some ideas ..." is what's most needed. NFC - funny! Just as good as Murry's Cacophony! :) Well, one thing for sure with such a cacophony and swamp environment, before venturing into such a document, maybe the first rule should be: "He who dares to write a document (of any status) better believe in it!" -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
