Re: [ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion

On 05/26/2010 10:42 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/26/2010 09:58 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > > > 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"
> > > Huh? What does that have to do with anything? John is wrong: ADSP allows 
> > > them to
> > > get rid of the "special case" handling by Y! and G. This is hardly 
> > > controversial.
> >
> > Could you expand on why you think that?
> Michael claims off-list that he has no idea what I'm speaking of.
>
> So, to be more specific, I'm implicitly asking two things.
>
>      1. Should those domains be treated differently by the recipient ISP?
>
>      2. How does ADSP help them make that decision?
>
> There's probably a third followup question if the answer to "2" involves 
> maintaining a list of domains, but that can wait.
Oops, I didn't mean those to be off-list... don't know how that happened. Given 
where this
is going, that may have been a blessing missed.

I really don't understand what the look-alike domain name has to do with 
anything. It's
well understood that ADSP doesn't claim to help that. But for bit-for-bit 
copies of the
discardable domain's name, Brett is right: ADSP allows his "special case" 
arrangement
with G and Y! to scale to anybody who might want to have the same "agreement". 
I don't
see why this is controversial.

Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html