[ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion
mike at mtcc.com
Wed May 26 10:57:15 PDT 2010
On 05/26/2010 10:42 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> On May 26, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2010 09:58 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>>>> On May 26, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Brett McDowell wrote:
>>>>> I respectfully disagree with you.
>>>>> We *were* a special case. Soon we will not be a special case because ADSP will enable all mailbox providers, if they choose, to do for others what they have historically done for us. That's the big win that only ADSP could ever enable.
>>>>> Apparently such an announcement is going to come as a surprise to many of you on this list, but it shouldn't. It's the logical conclusion of the ADSP work.
>>>> I'm big on concrete examples. So how does your logical conclusion deal with these two situations?
>>>> $ host -t txt _adsp._domainkey.paypaI.me
>>>> _adsp._domainkey.paypaI.me descriptive text "dkim=discardable"
>>>> $ host -t txt _adsp._domainkey.paypal.com
>>>> _adsp._domainkey.paypal.com descriptive text "dkim=discardable"
>>> Huh? What does that have to do with anything? John is wrong: ADSP allows them to
>>> get rid of the "special case" handling by Y! and G. This is hardly controversial.
>> Could you expand on why you think that?
> Michael claims off-list that he has no idea what I'm speaking of.
> So, to be more specific, I'm implicitly asking two things.
> 1. Should those domains be treated differently by the recipient ISP?
> 2. How does ADSP help them make that decision?
> There's probably a third followup question if the answer to "2" involves maintaining a list of domains, but that can wait.
Oops, I didn't mean those to be off-list... don't know how that happened. Given where this
is going, that may have been a blessing missed.
I really don't understand what the look-alike domain name has to do with anything. It's
well understood that ADSP doesn't claim to help that. But for bit-for-bit copies of the
discardable domain's name, Brett is right: ADSP allows his "special case" arrangement
with G and Y! to scale to anybody who might want to have the same "agreement". I don't
see why this is controversial.
More information about the ietf-dkim