Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] That weird i= is most probably EDSP

From: Michael Deutschmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:47:43 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Roland Turner wrote:
> I mean what benefit would a receiver enjoy over not implementing it at
> all?

It would be a spam filter basically.  Being an anti-forgery protocol, it
would have a high false negative rate compared to dedicated anti-spam
techniques (since unforged spam definitely exists), but it would offer a
very low false positive rate.

Turning it on for all users by default would be even less controversial
than turning on, say, Spamhaus ZEN.

Except for the mailing-list-footers case and the traditional-forwarder
case, no wanted mail is forged.  And "EDSP" would not trigger on those
two cases.

---- Michael Deutschmann <[email-masked]>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Aug 2013 13:53:19 -0000

>case, no wanted mail is forged.  And "EDSP" would not trigger on those

Even assuming that you're redefined "forged" to mean "fails whatever
my favorite authentication scheme is", you must live in a much simpler
world than the rest of us.

R's,
John