On Thursday, May 26, 2011 07:15:25 PM MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:07 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again > > > > On Thursday, May 26, 2011 03:21:19 PM Steve Atkins wrote: > > > If the reputation of the MLM is poor enough that mail from it is not > > > being > > > delivered, trumping that with an authors reputation may get > > > individual > > > emails delivered - but not threads, so it doesn't really improve the > > > value > > > provided to the recipient (it probably decreases it - a mailing list > > > that > > > delivers one in ten posts to my inbox is less useful than one that > > > delivers none at all). > > > > I think this has it rather backwards. If mail From (body From) a > > certain > > domain arrives 999 time with a valid DKIM signature and on the 1,000th > > time it > > arrives with either no signature or a broken one, then that's a > > negative > > anomaly in the mail stream that receivers are quite likely to take > > notice of. > > While ADSP is the public whipping boy for this, there are plenty of > > private > > efforts based on doing exactly this. > > > > The question isn't do I trust the ML or not. For domains with a non- > > trivial > > number of users the overall mail system will have no idea about what > > ML should > > be trusted or not. The question is how harshly do I treat this > > message based > > on the lack of a good signature. > > > > Scott K > > The other piece of the equation is how often do I see abusive mail > purporting to be from this domain with no signature while mail from this > domain that is normally signed has no significant problems.
True. That could be a factor as well. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
