On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:21 AM, John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I agree with you here. I was just trying to give an example > > why BigBank would like to publish ADSP records that cause MTA > > operators to treat mails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] as > > "suspicious" (or something). > > Oh, I have no doubt that bigbank.com would like to blanket the DNS with > discardable ADSP records. The question is whether any receivers would > care. I wouldn't, since I don't consider a.b.foo.com any more similar to > foo.com than a-b-foo.com. > > Among the many conceptual problems that plague ADSP is the fantasy among > some senders that this will somehow give them more control over what > receivers do with their mail.
I think it would help the productivity here to drop the "senders inherently have an agenda and are all wrong for that reason alone" line of discussion. I don't know that you count as a receiver any more than I (or my employer) does. So I'm unsure what you're trying to distance yourself from. Both you and I are receivers or represent receivers, probably to a similar extent. Host random stuff for random people. In addition, ET hosts inbound mail handling for many clients, hosts many domains, and receives a stunning amount of blowback. I don't know that this makes either of us "receivers" along the lines of top consumer ISPs. As far as sending, historically I have understood you to consult with numerous senders on occasion. So I think it's a bit unfair to take issue purely based on which MAAWG badge somebody might be wearing....when if you set those aside, we're seemingly a lot harder to tell apart. Senders have an agenda. As do receivers, and everybody else. We're here to figure it all out, but I'm certainly starting to feel that "bleck, senders" is a useless, unhelpful response. The larger picture of that "fantasy among senders" seems to actual have been started, and in a large part driven, by large receiving sites, looking for newer, better tools and assistance to help improve identification of phish and spoof mail. Look historically at the email authentication effort, specifically Yahoo and DK, Hotmail and Sender ID. These both give senders more control over what receivers do with their mail, yet they are not something that some secret group of senders jammed down anybody's throat. They were receiver designed and pushed. It's not a fantasy, nor is it "senders" anything alone. Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
