[ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the receiving side
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Wed Oct 14 11:00:41 PDT 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HLS [mailto:sant9442 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:30 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: iane at sussex.ac.uk; Daniel Black; ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
> receiving side
> You do realize that this just give people ammunition to throw the book
> at anyone for violating IETF standards.
I have completely missed your logic, I'm afraid. No, I don't realize this at all.
> Its a fact, they would be
> violating a IETF standard if they break mail knowing FULL well there
> is an technology specifically designed to protected against such abuse.
What exactly would the penalty be for Google Mail choosing not to apply ADSP, which is 0% mandatory?
> If a ISP or anyone is intentionally violating an RFC and pushing back
> into broken mail into the network that can potentially harm a domain
> or end-users, they are no doubt putting themselves at risk and any
> smart high tech lawyer would be licking his chops if the VENDOR is a
> big buck organization.
What mail would they be pushing back into the network?
If Google Mail wishes to put itself at risk (and I disagree they're doing so), isn't that their choice? If it's really such an atrocious decision, won't the users go someplace safer, or won't industry apply pressure for them to come around?
> Why continue with this nonsense contentious issue
+1 to that bit, especially all this senseless intensity.
> when the solution is
> 1) Respect RFC 5617
> 2) Update it to support resigners
> 3) Or get rid of it.
Sorry, I don't agree that these are the only options. How about a different proposal, orthogonal to ADSP, covering lists and forwarders? How about proposing extensions to ADSP that cover the areas you feel aren't covered?
How about something, anything, that seeks to encourage co-operation rather than friction?
> This on-going idea that it can exist but IGNORED is not a good idea
> and is bound to bite people in the butt.
Oh, I can list a pretty large number of mail-related RFCs, some of them standards track, that are not universally implemented and the world hasn't blown up yet.
More information about the ietf-dkim