From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:18 PM
To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
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
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
Where someone stands depends on where they sit.
When their ISP discards mail the customer wanted, the explanation
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
alter their activity. Since discarding got them in trouble, they
start discarding much more selectively. "Selectively" means using
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"
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.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to