[ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

[Michael Thomas]

John L wrote:

>> In other words, you really have no clue as to how these people use email
>> and what the collateral damage would be. The average small firm/company
>> doesn't even understand the difference between a mailing list, a blog
>> or a discussion board. And you expect them to be able to make an 
>> informed
>> decision?
>
>
> I have a pretty good idea how lawyers use e-mail, since I do a fair 
> amount of expert witness work and do all of the routine stuff (i.e., 
> not of interest to opposing lawyers) by e-mail.  Lawyers exchange some 
> of the highest value e-mail of anyone, case management messages with 
> courts and other law firms.  If one of those messages gets lost, it 
> can mean that the lawyer loses a case by default.  This is not a 
> hypothetical concern; see my blog entry at 
> http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/barge.html
>
> So if "sign everything" SSP makes their point to point mail more 
> reliable, law firms will use it in a millisecond.  

I cannot see how SSP can do anything but make false positives more likely.
The real question is whether the gain in eliminating harmful mail is 
worth the
occassional  false positive. So if what you are saying is true,  law 
firms would
be literally nuts to turn SSP "I sign everything" on, and  so I'm 
surprised to hear
that you think they should.

>>> Speaking as a receiver, I have to say I didn't find that info either
>>> useful or interesting.
>>>
>> I wasn't aware that you wrote spam filters for a living.
>
>
> I wasn't aware that "receiver" was a synonym for "commercial spam 
> filter vendor."  One learns something new every day.

Meaning that your opinion of utility is not the sole gauge of utility. In
fact, you probably benefit a lot from people who find utility in things that
you don't care about to keep your mail mostly spam free.
   
    Mike