On 5/5/10 1:23 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Douglas Otis<[email protected]> wrote: > >> A) a hash label mechanism scales to any number of third-party services >> within a single transaction. >> > I don't see how this would work with mailing lists. A domain owner > would have to know all the lists his users may want to be on. His > users would need to know to notify him when they joined a new list. > Jeff,
Use of ADSP "all" or "discardable" for transactional, institutional, or corporate messages would differentiate these domains from those for the general public. These domains would be asserting restrictive ADSP policies to limit recipient exposure to confidence schemes by reducing acceptance of messages lacking an Author Domain Signature. Unfortunately, limiting acceptance of messages lacking these signatures disrupts mailing-list participation and makes the desired protections generally impractical. Before ADSP can be broadly utilized, a solution to mitigate message loss with acceptable third-party services is needed. This could mean automating the publication of hash labels from user requests. In most cases, sharing keys would not be practical. Unilateral hash label authorizations can be specifically for a domain with messages having headers indicative of a mailing-list, for example. The third-party authorization draft also allows authorizations to be managed by other domains through use of DNAME at the "_adsp." node. An important aspect of this mitigation is that it requires the same overhead used to collect the ADSP policy. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
