On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 7:25 AM
To: Hector Santos
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-01 review request
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net>
wrote:
So if the MLM simply follow the guideline to prohibit strict ADSP
domain mail from entering its list environment, the downlink
non-delivery ADSP problems would not be an issue anymore - no
dependency on how downlinks are behaving and have no control over.
+1
I agree. But I'd also like to cover the case where an MLM elects not to
handle ADSP at all, and the receivers have to deal with it. I think failing
to do so leaves a fairly obvious hole.
So I'm not sure what the objection is here. Is there something you guys want
removed or changed?
No objection, just that MLMs MUST take ADSP into consideration.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html