John Levine replied to Al Iverson:
Yahoo and Hotmail seem to be good candidates to want this. I'm open
to
hearing otherwise from them. I think a lack of response on this list
is
not equivalent to a negative response, though.
But you're assuming your conclusions again. I've never heard anyone
from Yahoo claim that they want automatic ADSP coverage for
random.junk.yahoo.com, so I see no reason to think that they do. I've
never heard anyone from Hotmail express any interest in ADSP at all.
(As you know, I don't work for either Microsoft/MSN/Hotmail or Yahoo!
anymore, and cannot speak on their behalf. This is purely my own
opinion, based on externally visible data.)
Both grew organically over the course of 10-12 years, so it's hard to
make sweeping generalizations about their namespaces.
The ADSP statement for yahoo.com (which is Yahoo! Mail) will be
different from groups.yahoo.com (which is Yahoo! Groups, an entirely
different department), which will be different from upcoming.yahoo.com
(which was upcoming.org until about a year ago.) Even within Mail,
alerts.mail.yahoo.com will be different from addressbook.mail.yahoo.com.
Some branches of the heierarchy could do okay with inheriting the parent
-- but not as far down as yahoo.com.
IMHO the thing about phishers forging nonexistant domains is a
non-issue. I can not imagine any circumstances where a nonexistant
domain with no possibility of an ADSP statement will be given the same
privleges as an existing domain that does have an ADSP statement. I can
much more easily imagine someone setting up newservice.example.com
without realizing that their new service falls under example.com's ADSP
statement, thus causing general bad feelings about ADSP and DKIM in
general.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html