On 9/27/10 12:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> On Monday, September 27, 2010 12:00 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: >> >> The ATPS draft incorrectly assumes two things: >> >> 1) All desired third-party services use DKIM. > For the purposes of the experiment, that seems to be a reasonable assumption > given the associated mechanisms. It would however be trivial to decouple it > from DKIM (or more specifically, ADSP). You have placed TPA information in a domain not below "_domainkey.<signing-domain>". This increases the response size by 11 bytes with a trade-off of making delegations to signing mail providers more difficult. I am open to either approach, however only DKIM makes this scheme practical. >> 2) Additional header fields are not needed to ensure proper message >> sorting or recognition. > I'm open to adding such extensions to the experiment if they're deemed > necessary, but I don't want to pack the content of the record with a bunch of > stuff until that's obvious. Over-engineering these efforts up-front has been > proven a very effective way of rendering them unusable. Unless there is a recognized need, additional information should not be included. At the same time, unless authorizations can defend against likely abuse, that too would render efforts unusable. The additional information also benefits the recipient when it simplifies their process and increases the number of messages being properly marked for rejection.
-Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
