[ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy

[John L <[e-mail]>]

> John does have business interests in commercial accreditation services, 
> however I think he in general somehow does not like policy records

It's true, I don't, and I've been trying to figure out why not.  It 
finally came to me: senders are not the right people to judge their own 
importance.

When I think of SSP records saying dump mail if it's not signed, I see a 
bunch of tiny gorillas*, beating their teensy chests and saying in high 
squeaky voices, "Beware, oh Internet, of the Scourge of Criminals 
attempting to forge the image of my Inestimable Personage, and do not DARE 
to be fooled by these Base Mockeries of Communication!"  The only 
reasonable response from everyone else is somewhere between "Huh?" and 
"Get real."

If the ABA or the FDIC published a list of domains used by member banks to 
send signed transactional mail, I would find that really useful.  A list 
of people who think they are as threatened by forgery as those banks is 
useless other than for entertainment value.

So that's the problem with SSP.  Whatever your policy is, unless you're 
someone I already have reason to be interested in, I don't care.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

* - Lest anyone wonder, on the 500 pound gorilla scale I rate about an 
ounce and a half.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html