[ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Sat Oct 14 09:57:50 PDT 2006
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
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
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.
More information about the ietf-dkim