[ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing
fenton at cisco.com
Fri Aug 25 22:10:21 PDT 2006
Douglas Otis wrote:
> It MUST always be the provider offering outbound services, not the
> provider receiving messages held accountable. The designators are the
> receivers of email. Not the senders and signers. Reputation is about
> watching for abuse when it is sent by your customer, even when they
> are using their email-address of the day.
In that case, you must believe that key delegation and NS delegation do
the wrong thing.
SSP Designated Signing Domains have been promoted as making it easier
for some domains, particularly small domains, to obtain a first-party
signature. But that otherwise the end result is the same. My point is
that it isn't: the point of responsibility is different for SSP
Designated Signing Domains from the other forms of delegation.
More information about the ietf-dkim