[ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended

[Stephen Farrell]

Doug,

That was agreed to be closed on the jabber session.

No-one spoke against that, so please consider this closed/rejected.

(Eliot - you can close it now, thanks.)

Stephen.

Douglas Otis wrote:
> https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1359
> 
> There was some agreement on the list regarding considerations pertaining 
> to who should receive the abuse feedback enabled by the DKIM signature.
> 
> When a designation scheme is considered, then this feedback 
> consideration becomes far more significant.  Some assume the signing 
> domain will accrue a reputation for unsolicited commercial email, but 
> this overlooks limitations in the DKIM protocol making such 
> accountability impossible.
> 
> While DKIM may provide a means for accruing a list of domains that 
> either do or do not phish, it does not provide a means for accruing a 
> lists of domains that do or do not send unsolicited commercial email.  
> As a result, accrual of reputation for general acceptance will continue 
> to be done by the IP address of the SMTP client.  This consideration 
> significantly alters assumptions regarding which domain should be 
> signing the messages, and what role domain designation might play.
> 
> -Doug_______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according 
> tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>