IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

<Bill.Oxley@cox.com> Fri, 04 August 2006 22:25 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G986W-0006M4-Fw for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:25:16 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G986U-000098-35 for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:25:16 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k74MOYgh031376; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:24:34 -0700
Received: from cox.com (post1.cox.com [24.248.74.35]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k74MOTFf031362 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:24:30 -0700
Received: from ([192.168.74.254]) by post1.cox.com with ESMTP id KP-GZH56.233232693; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:23:46 -0400
Received: from CATL0MS20.CORP.COX.COM ([10.62.210.20]) by catl0ms23.CORP.COX.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:23:46 -0400
Received: from CATL0MS02.corp.cox.com ([10.62.210.88]) by CATL0MS20.CORP.COX.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:23:46 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:23:45 -0400
Message-ID: <BB621D48443A854A89D86528F915864C0215F76F@CATL0MS02.corp.cox.com>
In-Reply-To: <62146370608041358y7b914897qdfecdc3c67a1e53d@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
Thread-Index: Aca4C5z+8eO+0d6tR4G34tU6STxcEgACLZDw
From: Bill.Oxley@cox.com
To: deepvoice@gmail.com, pbaker@verisign.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2006 22:23:46.0718 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6FE53E0:01C6B814]
X-Songbird: Clean, Clean
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sb7.songbird.com id k74MOTFf031362
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird-From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465

> Actually I have a business plan where people pay me to make the
reports on their behalf.
>
> Making reports could improve your reputation.
>
That's a fine idea, use the extortion plan of some blacklisters for
whitelisters. Several of these plans are in the market. I get howled at
all the time because some folks pay other folks for a good reputation
and my users happily report them as spam and they get blocked by the
spam engines.
Thanks,

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
bill.oxley@cox.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Damon
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 4:58 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

> Actually I have a business plan where people pay me to make the
reports on their behalf.
>
> Making reports could improve your reputation.
>

Will it have a "Only one entry per household" rule? _sniff_

I kind of like the idea. I have an issue with implementation and all
the spamming that will be done to the yet to be developed protocol
though. We went through this "new protocol" argument with SPF. I am
hoping that people will have learned their lesson and say.. if it
doesn't break base, adding new protocols, etc. as an option isn't
automatically dismissed.

Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email