[ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

[Damon]

On Jan 28, 2008 10:18 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer at ag.com> wrote:
> 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.

Something that we (us trench warfare guys) have always had to do. But
passing off signing to a third party and not having to be in that
business (unless it's a value add ;-) and not having to sully the
reputation of the ISP as a whole is a far better solution in my eyes.

>
> 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?

No objection on my part- but I think we could do better.

>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?

Certainly but for largish ISP's and large corporations who do a lot of
farming of their applications, being able to slice it up instead of
getting the whole hog would be preferable and make the entire exercise
worthwhile. I for one would certainly implement a lot faster with this
capability.

Regards,
Damon