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

[John L <[e-mail]>]

> Part of the problem here is the past record of SPF with over-zealous 550 if
> there's any hint of bogosity. We, for example, would be forced to take down
> a "we sign everything" policy if that were to happen with DKIM -- even though
> we'll be signing everything pretty soon. If there were a qualifier in the "I 
> sign everything policy" that specifically implies that sending a 550 based on a 
> missing DKIM signature alone is extremely bone-headed" then maybe we can both.

I don't see the point.  That last suggestion is, to the recipient, the 
equivalent of a useless "I sign some mail" since you're telling the 
recipient it's OK to accept some amount of both signed and unsigned mail.

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