On May 26, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 05/26/2010 09:58 AM, Steve Atkins wrote: >> On May 26, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Brett McDowell wrote: >> >>> I respectfully disagree with you. >>> >>> We *were* a special case. Soon we will not be a special case because ADSP >>> will enable all mailbox providers, if they choose, to do for others what >>> they have historically done for us. That's the big win that only ADSP >>> could ever enable. >>> >>> Apparently such an announcement is going to come as a surprise to many of >>> you on this list, but it shouldn't. It's the logical conclusion of the >>> ADSP work. >> >> I'm big on concrete examples. So how does your logical conclusion deal with >> these two situations? >> >> $ host -t txt _adsp._domainkey.paypaI.me >> _adsp._domainkey.paypaI.me descriptive text "dkim=discardable" >> >> $ host -t txt _adsp._domainkey.paypal.com >> _adsp._domainkey.paypal.com descriptive text "dkim=discardable" >> > > Huh? What does that have to do with anything? John is wrong: ADSP allows them > to > get rid of the "special case" handling by Y! and G. This is hardly > controversial.
Could you expand on why you think that? Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
