Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

J.D. Falk wrote:
> On 2006-09-06 10:45, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
>> The main value I see in user level policy is easing phased
>> deployment. If you are a bank with 100,000 employees with email and
>> you want to deploy DKIM you probably want some form of hook that lets
>> you do it in stages.
>
> So they'll have 100,000 SSP records?
>
> Perhaps there's an easier, more flexible, more scalable hook...like
> "we don't sign all mail."
>

There's a subtlety in draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02 that if user-level SSP is
specified but no user-level record is found, it uses the domain-level
SSP.  So if there are a few exceptions to the domain-level SSP, you only
need to publish a few.  In any case, for your example, no more than
50,000 :-)

The aspect of user-level SSP that concerns me equally is the transaction
load.  When user-level SSP is "turned on", the verifier MUST query for a
user-level record in addition to the domain-level record.  User-level
queries are not as effectively cached, since these are queries for
individual addresses, not domains.

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