[ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

Actually my customers usually have an IP that is within my domain. So if foo.com signs without an SSP statement, software could determine that joebob.com belongs to that IP range set that foo.com owns. In that case resposibility for the message is set.
thanks,
Bill


-----Original Message-----
From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:MHammer at ag.com]
Sent: Mon 1/28/2008 10:18 AM
To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta)
Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP
 
I'd like to voice my support for Bill's position, notwithstanding #1360
from a year ago. 

The reality is that many smaller domain owners rely on their ISP or some
other service provider to deal with the "under-the-hood" stuff. The
cname suggestion is interesting but I  haven't had time to think it
through. 

Bill and anybody else who is responsible for outbound mail knows that
they are going to get dinged - signed or not - if they don't address
issues caused by mail coming from their system.

If Bill is willing to sign and wants a stronger statement made by SSP
that the domain uses his DKIM signature, where is the technical
objection? It indicates the From domains signing policy and makes it
easier for a receiver to more clearly ascertain a party that wants to
take responsibility for the message. Isn't that the object of the
exercise?

Mike

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org 
>[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Bill.Oxley at cox.com
>Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:01 AM
>To: deepvoice at gmail.com; johnl at iecc.com
>Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
>Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP
>
>"Bill, from now on, if you have a
>spammer who gets an account, I am going to hold you and your 
>entire ISP responsible... I know you did it, I have your 
>signature right here."
>Would you care for a list of largish mail systems/ISP's that 
>do that now?
>
>
>