[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages

[Steve Atkins]

On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:00 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>
>> robert at barclayfamily.com wrote:
>>
>>> But I think there are a sufficient number of cases where
>> domain owners
>>> may want to make statements not just about mail that is not signed,
>>> but about mail that is not signed by them.
>>
>> Are you kidding me?  I am willing to bet that given the
>> opportunity to do so, they will immediately apply strong
>> SIGNING requirements to their mail, IFF the receivers are
>> going to HONOR the policies.
>>
>
> +1
>
> My organization has recently started DKIM signing (millions and  
> millions
> of emails signed in the last 10 days) for 5 large scale mailing  
> domains
> plus making strong SPF assertions for those domains. The end game I  
> want
> to see for DKIM-SSP (Can't we make SSP broader? Please?) would be  
> for me
> to be able to make the assertion that ALL mail from these domains is
> signed and ONLY comes from the IP addresses indicated in our SPF
> records.

Sounds like interesting operational data.

Could you expand on your choice to use ~all for ag.com - presumably
important corporate mail - while using -all for americangreetings.com -
presumably bulk/junk/e-card mail?

Also, were there any interesting delivery rate changes when you  
changed your
SPF practices?

Cheers,
   Steve