[ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

[Damon]

On 8/4/06, John L <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> > Part of the problem here is the past record of SPF with over-zealous 550 if
> > there's any hint of bogosity. We, for example, would be forced to take down
> > a "we sign everything" policy if that were to happen with DKIM -- even though
> > we'll be signing everything pretty soon. If there were a qualifier in the "I
> > sign everything policy" that specifically implies that sending a 550 based on a
> > missing DKIM signature alone is extremely bone-headed" then maybe we can both.
>
> I don't see the point.  That last suggestion is, to the recipient, the
> equivalent of a useless "I sign some mail" since you're telling the
> recipient it's OK to accept some amount of both signed and unsigned mail.
>

+1