[ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the receiving side
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Wed Oct 14 09:47:15 PDT 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HLS [mailto:sant9442 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:06 AM
> To: Ian Eiloart
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; Daniel Black; ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
> receiving side
> +1 and that is a very critical point for product engineers especially
> when there new legal terms like "domain responsibility" peppered
> throughout the documents. This is just asking for trouble one way or
> another. That alone can scare people away (raises the barrier to
> POLICY provides indemnification for receivers with a clear DOMAIN
> publication for its expectation for signatures.
I don't think such a claim holds any weight unless it's written down in a law book somewhere. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that's Google's position.
> In effect, ADSP (LEVINE) is saying:
> This is possible useful for MDA to use.
> But MTA (intermediary signers) can ignore it.
> I don't think that is sound engineering.
Until someone proposes a way to force all MTAs, including legacy ones, to pay attention to ADSP, all of this recent hysteria about ADSP is little more than academic.
More information about the ietf-dkim