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

[John L <[e-mail]>]

> In other words, you really have no clue as to how these people use email
> and what the collateral damage would be. The average small firm/company
> doesn't even understand the difference between a mailing list, a blog
> or a discussion board. And you expect them to be able to make an informed
> decision?

I have a pretty good idea how lawyers use e-mail, since I do a fair amount 
of expert witness work and do all of the routine stuff (i.e., not of 
interest to opposing lawyers) by e-mail.  Lawyers exchange some of the 
highest value e-mail of anyone, case management messages with courts and 
other law firms.  If one of those messages gets lost, it can mean that the 
lawyer loses a case by default.  This is not a hypothetical concern; see 
my blog entry at http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/barge.html

So if "sign everything" SSP makes their point to point mail more reliable, 
law firms will use it in a millisecond.  If it means that some other 
people won't see some messages they send to mailing lists, they won't 
care.  If, as I suspect will be more likely, their correspondents will 
ignore SSP and whitelist mail from organizations they know, they won't 
bother.  If a law firm elects to accept e-mailed notices from a court, 
there's a multi-step process to ensure that the mail works, and it'd be an 
obvious place to add people a local whitelist.  But it's a decision they 
can reasonably make for good business reasons.


>> Speaking as a receiver, I have to say I didn't find that info either
>> useful or interesting.
>> 
> I wasn't aware that you wrote spam filters for a living.

I wasn't aware that "receiver" was a synonym for "commercial spam filter 
vendor."  One learns something new every day.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html