--On 13 October 2009 09:32:20 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of John R. Levine >> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:24 PM >> To: Daniel Black >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the >> receiving side >> >> I can assure you that Paypal and eBay are quite aware of DKIM and ADSP, >> and I have personally heard them encourage ISPs to drop unsigned mail >> purporting to be from them due to the amount of forgery. Nonetheless, >> they don't publish ADSP. This tells me that I'm not the only one who >> thinks that there isn't a business case for ADSP. > > Another data point: Google Mail won't use ADSP because they will not > discard someone's mail outright without a written agreement from the > sending domain agreeing to same, absolving them of responsibility for > mail that never arrives. > You mean that they won't publish ADSP records? Or that they won't respect any ADSP records? Or that they won't discard "discardable" messages? Logically, none of these things follow. Publishing ADSP records doesn't mean that Google will discard anything, though it does grant permission for others to do so. They have lots of other things that they can do as a result of ADSP fails. Presumably, they'd be more aggressive with quarantining mail if there's an ADSP record that renders a specific email discardable. Heck, they could even argue that publication of "dkim=discardable" does absolve them. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
