> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Douglas Otis > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Authorizing List Domains > > You have placed TPA information in a domain not below > "_domainkey.<signing-domain>". This increases the response size by 11 > bytes with a trade-off of making delegations to signing mail providers > more difficult. I am open to either approach, however only DKIM makes > this scheme practical.
How does it make something more difficult? > At the same time, unless authorizations can defend against > likely abuse, that too would render efforts unusable. The additional > information also benefits the recipient when it simplifies their > process and increases the number of messages being properly marked for > rejection. I don't really want to conduct an experiment that includes myriad optional policy specifications without some operational data to suggest they stand a chance of adoption. Simpler is better. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
