You do realize that this just give people ammunition to throw the book
at anyone for violating IETF standards. Its a fact, they would be
violating a IETF standard if they break mail knowing FULL well there
is an technology specifically designed to protected against such abuse.
If a ISP or anyone is intentionally violating an RFC and pushing back
into broken mail into the network that can potentially harm a domain
or end-users, they are no doubt putting themselves at risk and any
smart high tech lawyer would be licking his chops if the VENDOR is a
big buck organization.
Why continue with this nonsense contentious issue when the solution is
simple:
1) Respect RFC 5617
2) Update it to support resigners
3) Or get rid of it.
This on-going idea that it can exist but IGNORED is not a good idea
and is bound to bite people in the butt.
--
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:53 AM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; John R. Levine; Daniel Black
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
>> receiving side
>>
>>> 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?
>
> They won't honour ADSP "dkim=discardable" records posted by others.
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm only relaying what I was told at a conference. You're free to contact
> them for an explanation beyond what I've said.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
