> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:18 PM > To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Cc: DKIM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review > > > > On 9/13/2010 7:19 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > If a domain publishing ADSP discardable has not gotten control of their > > mailstreams then all I can say is "Darwin was right". > > > I agree with you completely. > > The problem is that customers of a receiving ISP often do /not/ agree with > you. >
Where someone stands depends on where they sit. > When their ISP discards mail the customer wanted, the explanation "well, > it's > what the author told me to do" typically does not work. And since the > customer's contact is with the receiving ISP, it is the receiving ISP that > must > alter their activity. Since discarding got them in trouble, they will, at > best, > start discarding much more selectively. "Selectively" means using > information > beyond ADSP. > I've been saying for a while that ADSP is broken by design. When we (the group) reached the compromise that we did, I fully expected that data would become publicly available that would help generate a collective will to come up with a better/more robust implementation of ADSP. Put hope in one hand and.... never mind. > Given sufficient selectivity, the mechanism that defines "selective" will > contain enough information to make ADSP redundant. > Not intending to be tongue in cheek but I have to ask.... so what's your point? I think the activity in the "3rd party intermediary" space is indicative that there is a need to solve the issue of whether folks really mean the assertions they make and whether mailbox providers are willing to believe/act on those assertions. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
