On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:09:58 +0100, Douglas Otis
<dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Jun 18, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
With urgency being expressed by the chairs, it does not appear there
is time to resolve which non-DNS domains should or should not be
ignored. Clearly this is work independent of ADSP anyway.
I would suggest all that is needed in the present draft is a statement
that the existence check MAY be omitted in the case of TLDs that are known
not to exist in the global DNS system, with a pointer to RFC 2606 for some
examples (not to be construed as an exhaustive list). That leaves it to
Verifiers to use their Cpmmon Sense. Maybe a future document would make it
more specific, but that would cover us for now.
The only way that ADSP can work is for Verifiers to be
instructedthat anything that _looks_ like an SMTP message (in
fact, anything that complies with RFC 2822) is to be treated as if
every non-existent domain was LOCKED. Which is exactly what our
drafts and the current WG consensus seems to be saying.
Agreed. But this would be a change to SMTP, and is not limited to
domains currently considering DKIM and ADSP, which takes this well
beyond the DKIM WG.
On the contrary, ADSP is alrerady a change to SMTP, since it is
encouraging (to say the least) sites (i.e. verifiers) to drop, or at
least to interfere with, what are currently perfectly normal SMTP
messages.
Agreed. This is likely why the WG ADSP (ASP) draft avoided even
mentioning SMTP. : (
And it is also the reason why it should remain so.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html