On May 1, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Jim Fenton wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
So, from the receiver side, I don't have a problem with the
"treewalking" - whether it stays or goes. I don't see it's
existence as
the huge problem that others do but if it disappeared tomorrow this
would not destroy the essence of ADSP (it would just increase it's
deployment complexity).
It would increase deployment complexity for senders.
It would decrease deployment complexity for receivers.
That's true, but you also need to consider the nature and degree of
deployment complexity required.
Senders who want full coverage would need to either add new ADSP
records for all their hosts or deploy new (and, as far as I know,
currently nonexistent) DNS tools to automatically publish ADSP
records for all of their hosts.
Not at all. It's a purely internal matter. It has no impact outside
the site of someone who has chosen to use ADSP.
It's less important than it being purely a voluntary effort for ADSP
users, but there's also no need for them to deploy or develop new
tools to do so. If they can publish an A record, they can publish a
TXT record with little extra effort.
Otherwise, eceivers would need to deploy an ADSP implementation that
queries the parent domain, as currently described in SSP-03. Other
than that, they don't need to do anything special.
Which would add a network session for every inbound email, whether
that email was sent by an ADSP user or not. Increasing the latency of
inbound mail processing is a significant cost.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html