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

[John L <[e-mail]>]

>> 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.

> For us, the amount of mail that is in the false positive quandry is 
> really really small, though the people it would effect primiarly are 
> people who could make it a living hell in IT. A policy which is more 
> relaxed could, however, say that it's well worth the effort be extremely 
> cautious about such mail -- a far higher barrier to entry than the 
> current one-size-fits-all filters.

But you're talking about your own mail here, for which I expect that you 
have all sorts of special treatment.

I'm trying to think about what I'll do when DKIM is in wide use, I get 
mail from thousands of sources that publish SSP info.  If SSP says "I sign 
everything" I have trouble figuring a use for it other than a flat reject 
of unsigned messages or at least 4.9 points in a five point scoring spam 
filter.  I REALLY do not want an SSP that says "I sign everything, and 
here is my estimate on a 0 to 10 scale of how much you should 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.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html