> On Aug 28, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Jonathan Leist <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > We're currently exploring the possibility of migrating from signing as the > individual hostnames of our sending IPs to signing as the org domain aligned > with those hostnames (e.g. signing as example.com instead of > mail1.example.com). Our main concern is in regards to deliverability, as we'd > presumably lose years of sending history that we've accumulated with those > signing domains.
Relevant sending history when it comes to delivery decisions is typically measured in weeks so I wouldn't worry about anyone tracking your reputation from June, let alone 2017. > To potentially mitigate impact from the change, I'm considering having the d= > be the org domain, while i= could remain the actual hostname we've > historically signed with. So with the example above, they'd be d=example.com > and [email protected]. Would anyone know off hand whether we could expect > that to help preserve the reputation we've built as a sender, given that the > i= also carries reputation (from what I've read)? That wouldn't hurt anything. But I doubt it'd have much effect, as recipients are going to use either the d= or the domain part of the i=, not both. I'd expect them to just use the d=, mostly. The "DKIM Way" would be to sign twice, with the old domain and the new one, for a while. But if you're not seeing delivery issues today and you're not changing IP addresses, just the d= signing domain, I wouldn't expect much impact from just changing the d=. Trying it with a single MTA would let you see any impact, and dribble the new d= value into your mail stream. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
