-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:00 PM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim]New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr-
00(fwd)
On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:03 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
If an organization doesn't understand the implications of publishing
ADSP (or doing anything else for that matter) then the basic damage
done
is to themselves and their users. Their domain, their problem.
... and the problem of the recipients of their mail, and a support
issue
for the ISP of those recipients.
Form response... (I'm putting it tersely) "You need to go speak with the
folks at example.com as they are the ones creating the problem". If
enough receiving domains stood their ground on this it would quickly
become a non-issue. This is no different than receivers blocking MTAs
that are open relays. THAT doesn't seem to be much of a topic for
conversation these days.
When an ISP starts dealing with complaints about the quality of their
service[1] they will make the obvious operational decision and cease
using
ADSP to discard email.
Nothing in the ADSP spec says that the ISP has to silently drop the
mail. For all you know the ISP may choose to automatically send a notice
to the intended recipient indicating that they dropped mail from
example.com based on the published request from example.com and that if
the enduser has any questions they should contact
postmaster(_at_)example(_dot_)com(_dot_)
I LOVE hypotheticals. For every seemingly reasonable hypothetical you
come up with I'm sure that others can come up with one just as
reasonable that shows an alternative outcome.
They might well continue discarding non-DKIM signed mail from some
subset
of ADSP publishers.
That wouldn't be particularly useful for senders or receivers. How does
this differ from the pre-ADSP situation where a handful of large senders
cut private deals with a handful of large receivers? The whole point is
to come up with a standard so that it is A) open and B) scalable. What
you are suggesting is neither.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable operational result, but I don't
think it's the one that those signing with ADSP intended.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html