Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:45 -0400

On 8 Sep 2006 16:48:41 -0000 John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>2.  I don't care about the breakage and I'd prefer you reject unsigned 
mail.
>
>Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fundamental question here
>is why should the recipient care what the sender claims he prefers?
>
>Anytime you send e-mail to someone, you're basically asking them to do
>you a large favor by investing the effort to accept and deliver it.
>Senders don't get to set rules about what recipients can do.
>
>It's fine if senders can offer advice to recipients that the
>recipients find useful to do what they want to do, which is presumably
>to deliver mail that their own users want, but "because I said so"
>doesn't make advice useful.
>
OK.

Is there a formulation for this kind of 'strict' policy/practice/whatever 
that you wouldn't find innappropriate?

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

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Sep 2006 19:58:04 -0000

>that you wouldn't find innappropriate?

Say "I sign everything", leave it at that, and don't expect that more
than a small fraction of recipients will notice or care.

As more than one person has said, most of whom run much larger mail
systems than I do, useful lists of heavily phished domains where the
risk tradeoff favors discarding unsigned mail will come from entities
with real world credibility, not from self-identification.

R's,
John