[ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

[John L]

>>> d=bigmarketingcompany.com
>>> i=@brandA.bigmarketingcompany.com
>>>
>>> d=bigmarketingcompany.com
>>> i=@brandB.bigmarketingcompany.com

> That is an interesting view. I can accomplish the same by using
> sub-domains in d= instead. Are you simpy going to strip
> sub-domains from d= too?

Honestly, I'll do whatever seems easiest in my goal to deliver the mail my 
users want, which may or may not be the mail you think they want.  The 
best thing for senders to do, as you note below, is to divide up the mail 
stream in ways that make life easier for receivers.

> It is interesting that receivers (Hotmail/AOL/Yahoo) suggest to senders
> to separate their different type of mail streams
> (transactional,marketing,etc) by using IPs. The same can be
> accomplished with DKIM and i=.

Indeed, since that makes it easier to handle the ads their users don't 
care about differently from the transactions they want.  But I can't help 
but note that your example above was different clients, not different 
categories.

> I also hadn't realized that DKIM was strictly meant to benefit
> receivers.

It benefits senders to the extent that receivers can decide more 
accurately whether to deliver the mail they get sent.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.