On May 26, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Brett McDowell wrote:
I respectfully disagree with you.
We *were* a special case. Soon we will not be a special case because ADSP
will enable all mailbox providers, if they choose, to do for others what they
have historically done for us. That's the big win that only ADSP could ever
enable.
Apparently such an announcement is going to come as a surprise to many of you
on this list, but it shouldn't. It's the logical conclusion of the ADSP work.
I'm big on concrete examples. So how does your logical conclusion deal with
these two situations?
$ host -t txt _adsp._domainkey.paypaI.me
_adsp._domainkey.paypaI.me descriptive text "dkim=discardable"
$ host -t txt _adsp._domainkey.paypal.com
_adsp._domainkey.paypal.com descriptive text "dkim=discardable"
Cheers,
Steve
-- Brett
On May 26, 2010, at 11:55 AM, John Levine wrote:
Problem = phishing
Utility = just one sender + two mailbox providers have blocked over
100 million phishing attacks, many of those blocks also resulted in
site take-downs.
The value of what we already have from your efforts in IETF is HUGE
for consumer protection.
I believe this is a big win for DKIM, which I hope we can tell the world
about.
It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ADSP, since the two mailbox
providers are (quite reasonably) treating paypal and ebay as a special
case.
It could be even more useful with the kind of tweaks I've suggested
for MLM's... and probably a few more flags/states for ADSP.
We've gone around enough times why this would be bad for Paypal and
bad for everyone else, so I'll stop now.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html