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

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:03 AM, John L wrote:

>> "SIGN ALL MAIL" and "DO NOT USE ANY SERVICES KNOWN TO DAMAGE THEIR  
>> SIGNATURES"
>>
>> Cisco may wish to only state:
>>
>> "SIGN ALL MAIL"
>>
>> The important difference is whether the assertion is _expected_ to  
>> cover all possible sources carrying their messages.
>
> The more important difference is that recipients can do something  
> based on the first statement but not on the second.

Imagine that policy takes the form of a list that can either be  
declared as partial or complete.  In the case of a partial list,  
although that information will not aid the blocking of messages  
outright, it can still serve to clarify genuine relationships between  
the From email-address domain and the signing domain when they  
differ.  A partial list indicates that recipients should consider the  
reputation of the signing domain instead of blocking messages when  
this relationship is not established.  On the other hand, a complete  
list indicates that recipients need not consider the reputation of  
the signing domain and can blocking messages when the relationship is  
not established.  Although a complete list offers greater utility,  
for general use a complete list is not very practical assertion for  
most domains.

-Doug


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