[ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion

[Jeff Macdonald]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Steve Atkins <steve at wordtothewise.com> 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.

I said "huh?" too.


>
> So, to be more specific, I'm implicitly asking two things.
>
>    1. Should those domains be treated differently by the recipient ISP?

perhaps the question is "are those two different entities?" I'd say as
far as the recipient ISP can tell, yes.


>    2. How does ADSP help them make that decision?

It doesn't,  nor do I think it claims to.

-- 
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA