-----Original Message-----
From: HLS [mailto:sant9442(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:06 AM
To: Ian Eiloart
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; Daniel Black; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
receiving side
+1 and that is a very critical point for product engineers especially
when there new legal terms like "domain responsibility" peppered
throughout the documents. This is just asking for trouble one way or
another. That alone can scare people away (raises the barrier to
adoption).
POLICY provides indemnification for receivers with a clear DOMAIN
publication for its expectation for signatures.
I don't think such a claim holds any weight unless it's written down in a law
book somewhere. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that's Google's
position.
In effect, ADSP (LEVINE) is saying:
This is possible useful for MDA to use.
But MTA (intermediary signers) can ignore it.
I don't think that is sound engineering.
Until someone proposes a way to force all MTAs, including legacy ones, to pay
attention to ADSP, all of this recent hysteria about ADSP is little more than
academic.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html