> You'd call it malice to prioritize consumer protection over the a very > small population of employees being temporarily inconvenienced by having > some of their messages to mail lists delivered to SPAM and in some > corner cases, actually unsubscribed from lists...
You're welcome to take whatever risks you want with your own mail. That's not the issue. I was thinking of the perverse case where another organization sent discardable mail to a different list, and unrelated people rejected it and got bounced off. Yes, they both were arguably doing something wrong, but it was startling to find second order damage from ADSP to someone who wasn't publishing it. If it's not clear, I think it's wonderful that Paypal signs all their mail so that we can reasonably safely dump the unsigned stuff. I have my mail system set up to do that, albeit configured locally, not by ADSP. The basic problem with ADSP is that we shipped an untested prototype, and at this point the only way to test it is to try experiments and hope they don't do too much damage before we have a chance to tweak and mitigate the problems. I appreciate that Paypal's intentions are entirely virtuous, and that you deal with problems pretty quickly for a large organization. But since you're the elephant in this particular room, the visibility of accidental damage would be particularly great. I am concerned that since the distinction between DKIM and ADSP is unclear to many people, they may take away the impression that if they sign with DKIM, their mail will get lost. Since Paypal's practices are for the most part so good, it's very useful to be able to talk to people who are scratching their heads about DKIM and say "do what Paypal does." It's harder to say "do what Paypal does, except don't do that." R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
