> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 7:52 PM > To: Tony Hansen > Cc: IETF-DKIM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Tony Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Given the state of flux for ADSP, there was no way that our ISP services > > would even consider deploying it until after it was published. Now that > > it's closer, our ISP services certainly have plans for deployment. > > Most of ADSP has been, so far, an attempt to introduce (sometimes > ridiculously) fine grained reputation scoring for vendors, and clients > of vendors. > > Now, given new wording about d= primacy and i= opaqueness e&oe out of > band discussion .. >
Suresh, notwithstanding what some vendors might wish in terms of reputation, the case for ADSP is and always has been to leverage DKIM to be able to say "this domain signs all mail" in one way or another. Whether reputation is used in conjunction with this is a different discussion. From an abused (by phishing) domain perspective, DKIM signing of all mail + ADSP (being able to make the assertion that all mail is signed for a particular domain or subdomain)is useful for both the sender and the receiver. I am not going to claim that it is a magic bullet. It addresses particular issues in a particular way. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
