[ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00 vs draft-otis-dkim-adsp-002
chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Thu May 29 03:20:03 PDT 2008
On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:32:20 +0100, Douglas Otis <dotis at mail-abuse.org>
> On May 26, 2008, at 3:26 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 21:53:11 +0100, Douglas Otis <dotis at mail-
>>> Such testing is not mission creep. The test is simply based upon
>>> SMTP being the focus of ADSP assertions.
>> But SMTP IS NOT, and CANNOT BE the focus of ADSP assertions, simply
>> because a message may be gatewayed in and out of SMTP umpteen times
>> during its journey from original sender to ultimate recipient.
> Messages containing addresses unrelated to SMTP will always
> potentially conflict with ADSP. ...
NOT TRUE. Messages containing addresses unrelated to the DNS system will
always potentially conflict with ADSP. SMTP messages are but a subset of
>> The true "focus of ADSP assertions" is "all those protocols which
>> rely upon DSN as a part off their addressing mechanisms".
> There is no assurance that an undefined protocol will use DNS, since
> there are already such protocols available. The draft should indicate
> limitations imposed when adopting ADSP.
Exactly. And the limitation to be imposed should refer to "all those
protocols which used DNS-based addressing mechanisms", which is more than
just the one protocol SMTP.
Moreover, limiting it to SMTP is unimplementable. What test do your
propose? That is was received via SMTP? That is was originated by SMTP?
That is was passed via SMTP at every stage in its journey?
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
More information about the ietf-dkim