On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 8/10/2010 8:21 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
No objection, just that MLMs MUST take ADSP into consideration.
The only entities that MUST take ADSP into consideration are those that
choose to.
There is neither the expectation nor the leverage to force adoption.
While I don't want to encourage adoption, I'm viewing this from a
"defensive" perspective. The users of the MLM won't care if it is the
Author's fault for using ADSP and their IT group for honouring it. If
they communicate with that individual directly and the messages are
delivered, yet they are not via a MLM, then they are going to believe
it is the MLMs fault.
I just believe if the MLM author is going to the trouble to do
anything with DKIM, it doesn't make sense to ignore ADSP. After all a
MLM author wants his system to be robust.
Thus I support MLMs rejecting any messages with strong ADSP policy. It
isn't that different than MTAs rejecting connections from MTAs that
don't have rDNS.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html