On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:21 AM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think I agree with you here. I was just trying to give an example
> why BigBank would like to publish ADSP records that cause MTA
> operators to treat mails from
info(_at_)mail(_dot_)account(_dot_)bigbank(_dot_)com as
> "suspicious" (or something).
Oh, I have no doubt that bigbank.com would like to blanket the DNS with
discardable ADSP records. The question is whether any receivers would
care. I wouldn't, since I don't consider a.b.foo.com any more similar to
foo.com than a-b-foo.com.
Among the many conceptual problems that plague ADSP is the fantasy among
some senders that this will somehow give them more control over what
receivers do with their mail.
I think it would help the productivity here to drop the "senders
inherently have an agenda and are all wrong for that reason alone"
line of discussion.
I don't know that you count as a receiver any more than I (or my
employer) does. So I'm unsure what you're trying to distance yourself
from. Both you and I are receivers or represent receivers, probably to
a similar extent. Host random stuff for random people. In addition, ET
hosts inbound mail handling for many clients, hosts many domains, and
receives a stunning amount of blowback. I don't know that this makes
either of us "receivers" along the lines of top consumer ISPs. As far
as sending, historically I have understood you to consult with
numerous senders on occasion. So I think it's a bit unfair to take
issue purely based on which MAAWG badge somebody might be
wearing....when if you set those aside, we're seemingly a lot harder
to tell apart.
Senders have an agenda. As do receivers, and everybody else. We're
here to figure it all out, but I'm certainly starting to feel that
"bleck, senders" is a useless, unhelpful response.
The larger picture of that "fantasy among senders" seems to actual
have been started, and in a large part driven, by large receiving
sites, looking for newer, better tools and assistance to help improve
identification of phish and spoof mail. Look historically at the email
authentication effort, specifically Yahoo and DK, Hotmail and Sender
ID. These both give senders more control over what receivers do with
their mail, yet they are not something that some secret group of
senders jammed down anybody's throat. They were receiver designed and
pushed.
It's not a fantasy, nor is it "senders" anything alone.
Regards,
Al Iverson
--
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA
Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html