> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 6:03 PM > To: J D Falk > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines > > > > J D Falk wrote: > > Wietse wrote: > >> How would a receiver discover the top-level domain given example.com, > >> example.ac.uk, example.org.au, etc.? > > > > The same way we do now: annoying, manually maintained case statements. > > > This relies on a resource that is not specified in the document, is not > publicly standardized, and changes. > > Not such a good thing. > > d/ > -- >
But is it such a bad thing Dave? This is why I'm suggesting specifying how the domain owner can articulate the policy but not specifying (at this point) how a receiver might use it. It's that old King Canute thing that John likes to bring up. Different receivers will take different approaches for taking advantage of "A=Y" initially. Why would this be an issue? I have a strong feeling that the domain owners most likely to take advantage of something like this do not have tons of subdomains in their trees. I expect ADSP records to generally have (relatively) long TTLs. Do we expect most adopters to be changing their policies willy nilly? If I really wanted to make a change I would shorten up the TTL and then wait until well after the original TTL had passed to make the change. It's only an issue if someone has already published an ADSP policy - wouldn't it be nice if we could get ADSP out the door so people could actually start implementing? The overall hit in terms of lookups, tree walking, etc is not likely to be significant. I would expect (early) implementers to cache the results locally for the duration of the TTL rather than going externally for an ADSP lookup for each and every piece of email. There is a reason the name was changed from SSP to ADSP. With respect to that we should be asking ourselves how to empower author domains to express their signing policies in ways that then empower receivers to make rational decisions about how to handle (validly) signed vs unsigned email. J.D. and several others have indicated that they would determine base domains manually with regard to various TLD practices. I go back to my original question to receivers. Would an "A=Y" (or however syntactically constructed) assertion be sufficiently useful to receivers and reputation service providers that they would take advantage of it? Would it make sense to require an ADSP publisher wishing to utilize this to publish it for all (that would be a MUST) subdomains in a tree making such an assertion? If receivers and reputation service providers don't feel such an assertion is particularly useful then we can drop the discussion and move on to other things. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
