Mark Delany wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 12:08:00PM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
Folks,
I've heard a number of different groups say that they plan to make semantic
distinction based on selector. For example, they intend to send transaction
mail under one selector and marketing mail under another. Their intent is to
have reputation services distinguish between one domain+selector and another.
I believe this defeats the purpose of the selector and would like to get some
working group discussion and consensus about this.
Someone said that protocol abuse, defined success. Was that you Dave?
No, but I like it. It fits with other characteristics of an expanding
population of adopters and users. More variability.
In any event, the question is, what can be done about it? If we can't
stop it in the protocol, at best we can write unread admonishments.
At best, we can write some admonishments that get read. That's why a BCP or
O'Reilly type of guide would be useful.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html