On Mar 9, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, John R. Levine wrote:
Even though I do in fact sign all my mail with valid DKIM
signatures, I can't say that with ADSP. Perhaps there are people
who consider that makes ADSP highly functional, but it seems an odd
interpretation.
I also think it seems odd to label something which many people
clearly consider to be potentially valuable as "broken and useless"
in an environment which is supposed to be constructive and
cooperative.
ADSP constrains the use of the i= value in a manner the precludes its
intended role. This should be described as "broken" or at least
"incompatible" with RFC4871. When adhering to RFC4871, and there are
cases where the i= value will not be found within the From header
field. Extra steps are needed to overcome ADSP incompatibilities and
will be an impediment toward adoption.
One approach encourages participation and improvement, the other
discourages it.
Agreed. There should be greater sensitively for adoption
impediments. ADSP will not achieve sufficient adoption when only a
small percentage of those deploying DKIM can safely make ADSP
assertions beyond "unknown". Using terms like "CLOSED" and "LOCKED"
instead of "all" and "discardable" were intended to avoid prejudicial
handling that might discourage adoption, for example.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html