Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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.
Murray, we are not talking forcing anything.
We are talking codifying the IETF specifications because they are real
engineering and implementation conflicts. This is how IETF protocol
design is done to make sure we continue to offer interoperability to a
maximum extent. Thats the purpose of all this. Eventually, under
steady state, everything will fit better. Sure, they will be legacy
systems, but I'm also sure they will be interested in fixing it too.
Par for the course like other things, like 821 SMTP vs 2821 SMTP vs
5321 SMTP.
Its really has simple solutions. Unfortunately we are dealing with
stubborn obstacles that don't wish to address the issue but ignore it,
which would be all good if RFC 5617 didn't exist - but it does.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html