> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:00 PM > To: DKIM List > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim]New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr- > 00(fwd) > > > On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:03 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > > If an organization doesn't understand the implications of publishing > > ADSP (or doing anything else for that matter) then the basic damage done > > is to themselves and their users. Their domain, their problem. > > ... and the problem of the recipients of their mail, and a support issue > for the ISP of those recipients. >
Form response... (I'm putting it tersely) "You need to go speak with the folks at example.com as they are the ones creating the problem". If enough receiving domains stood their ground on this it would quickly become a non-issue. This is no different than receivers blocking MTAs that are open relays. THAT doesn't seem to be much of a topic for conversation these days. > When an ISP starts dealing with complaints about the quality of their > service[1] they will make the obvious operational decision and cease using > ADSP to discard email. > Nothing in the ADSP spec says that the ISP has to silently drop the mail. For all you know the ISP may choose to automatically send a notice to the intended recipient indicating that they dropped mail from example.com based on the published request from example.com and that if the enduser has any questions they should contact [email protected]. I LOVE hypotheticals. For every seemingly reasonable hypothetical you come up with I'm sure that others can come up with one just as reasonable that shows an alternative outcome. > They might well continue discarding non-DKIM signed mail from some subset > of ADSP publishers. > That wouldn't be particularly useful for senders or receivers. How does this differ from the pre-ADSP situation where a handful of large senders cut private deals with a handful of large receivers? The whole point is to come up with a standard so that it is A) open and B) scalable. What you are suggesting is neither. > I think that's a perfectly reasonable operational result, but I don't > think it's the one that those signing with ADSP intended. > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
