Re: DKIM and DMARC, Email explained from first principles
Sam Varshavchik <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.smtp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dave Crocker writes: >> That was definitely true at one point. Based on today's numbers that I >> looked at the mainstream adoption of DKIM sadly diluted its early value as a >> spam indicator, ironically. > > You seem to have fixated on using the existence of a signature as indicating > goodness or badness. Since it isn't intended to do that, please stop > casting the issue in terms of whether it accomplishes that. I understand, very well, what the intent of DKIM is. However, it is what it is. If I observe what the practical reality of the past or current usage of DKIM is, then this speaks for itself. _______________________________________________ ietf-smtp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEMWrVnbBKLOeG9ifkazpiviedvyUFAmCubAoACgkQazpivied vyUYBw//aMRh5EklavmpNXBQ4/xPgAZ5QwKShNskF5fLz+5RpYKy45aAnrlowEa8 cwUSkPkOYATuiLF6gh0r3jC+pTDmmF4JEtSJAW802/l77fnRnUXa0k7kNJhB8MPk t5OvWfrRWreK0FLRmguHUKJlsRN7YD+OB/J39lSVDo/LB3QdkcDloWUCrg1H5QXZ trGG3ffz5wD7xFr0T7ugvGalyISwjkxdzJLduA0fagwVRT/z065250Taq8hCGOXJ LZKdeKnzdMUZVBL8X88G8Mc4oQA0pH0G8aqpjmAYN9aMMRyimELtDIWXRvhYJB19 5SX8n1LjxodWWsRYo7WPHPkPjTv79oxRSuMQsiCQVOoK3kg/JMb+ZwYi+nMOBFGn TlJKwZx9bJZ1RG8AhAvnrbvoG2c4bSeWjY32ccaNt/R3+5Dtb3jev27UBrfm4uI9 Xks3cEV6oAihkvm67KYf9+L3HfHBzpJm32g6GRu/aBg0SYBvX2ohCu28rWX+SKzD ogMijFDeOnWUUYUqDdqrFQxnxRZJ/OtzI6FLg7qMRsBra6najssKmIXPRvgwB87H 9E4iatw7Zffb4SR53SwlTyjZ5a18czgjwdmR8rI8zimrY2Yi313dUZac9H5nUBDi LMckIb1ypL1/4tCkfJhYCblB7W0lV6DRw643XP5c15RKNYKFNwU= =Kym1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----