[ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?

[Steve Atkins]

On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:

> > I don't think it's really sunk in as to how small the set of senders
> > who will find this useful is, or how disruptive it will be if you
> > accidentally set it when it doesn't apply to you.
>
> From my perspective, the number needn't be small at all.  Small  
> organizations with their own mail processing infrastructure can  
> with relative ease audit their servers and outbound flow thus  
> making an o=! policy decision with more confidence and in less time  
> than, say, a Bank of America could.  Coupled with an inherent  
> desire to protect what is, even for small business, a core  
> corporate asset, o=! would seem to me to be a welcome option.

Even when it decreases overall deliverability? That is to say, causes  
legitimate email to be treated as forgeries and, likely, discarded.

I can see cases where that's going to be an appropriate tradeoff, but  
I don't think they're as widespread as some people think.

Cheers,
   Steve