On Mar 9, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, John R. Levine wrote: >> Even though I do in fact sign all my mail with valid DKIM >> signatures, I can't say that with ADSP. Perhaps there are people >> who consider that makes ADSP highly functional, but it seems an odd >> interpretation. > > I also think it seems odd to label something which many people > clearly consider to be potentially valuable as "broken and useless" > in an environment which is supposed to be constructive and > cooperative.
ADSP constrains the use of the i= value in a manner the precludes its intended role. This should be described as "broken" or at least "incompatible" with RFC4871. When adhering to RFC4871, and there are cases where the i= value will not be found within the From header field. Extra steps are needed to overcome ADSP incompatibilities and will be an impediment toward adoption. > One approach encourages participation and improvement, the other > discourages it. Agreed. There should be greater sensitively for adoption impediments. ADSP will not achieve sufficient adoption when only a small percentage of those deploying DKIM can safely make ADSP assertions beyond "unknown". Using terms like "CLOSED" and "LOCKED" instead of "all" and "discardable" were intended to avoid prejudicial handling that might discourage adoption, for example. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
