On Sep 14, 2010, at 10:32 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> It does not mean low value mail and I don't think you will find a >> sending mplementing dkim=discardable that would agree with you. > > Then in the RFC we utterly failed to make it clear what dkim=discardable > means. Sigh. > > Once again, we see that ADSP is so broken that even people who like it > don't understand what it is for. > > R's,
But John, you clearly never wanted ADSP to exist and you've made enough statements publicly about your motivation for becoming a co-author that it should come as no surprise if folks don't interpret your comments regarding ADSP with the same deference one normally expects in response to comments coming from a co-author. I suspect your fellow authors didn't realize you'd use this label change of "discardable" as ammunition after-the-fact to lobby for ADSP's disuse. Perhaps it's time to issue an update to ADSP which clarifies how the spec should be interpreted, by those who actually use it. -- Brett _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
