[ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Stephen Farrell wrote:


> Having said that, our job for now is to figure out whether to include
> this requirement or not for SSP, and your mail isn't entirely clear as
> to whether you think SSP needs to support that requirement.

I'm ambivalent.  I think it [that a domain claims to send no mail] is a fact 
that would significantly aid receivers in evaluating received mail.  I don't 
know that it needs to be defined here.  

I think there is some harm in every e-mail identity related protocol 
re-inventing how to express 'sends no mail'.  I think it would be better to 
do it once.  Given that there is one method that is standardized at least at 
the experimental level, in theory I think it's better not to try and reinvent 
the wheel here.  In practice, I understand that would open a rather large can 
of worms.

Just to be clear, I was suggesting using a TXT record with the sting 
literal 'v=spf1 -all' in it and not suggesting trying to drag the entire 
protocol along.

So, I guess I was unclear because I'm not certain what is best.  I think it 
depends of whether we are more concerned about theory or practice.  I tend to 
be practical, but I could go either way in this case.

Scott K