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

[Brett McDowell]

On Jun 2, 2010, at 3:26 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

>>> Recent experience suggests that they often don't.
>> Can you name someone with ADSP experience who doesn't understand what it means?
> 
> Not to pick on you specifically, since there are multiple examples, but I'd say that domains that publish dkim=discardable and who let their users subscribe and send messages to mailing lists don't understand what their ADSP is telling people.
> 
> I suppose it's possible they do know and they don't care how much damage they cause to everyone else, but I'd rather think it was confusion than malice.
> 

You'd call it malice to prioritize consumer protection over the a very small population of employees being temporarily inconvenienced by having some of their messages to mail lists delivered to SPAM and in some corner cases, actually unsubscribed from lists... while we invest time and resources to (a) assess how MTA's, MUA's and MLM's actually deal with these mail streams and (b) work with the standards community to improve the ecosystem by shaving off the rough edges we find?

Neither ignorance or malice, simply the will to be an early adopter of young standards with proven consumer protection capabilities coming from a respected source.  Yes, we are learning by doing and we are contributing all of that back to the community.

What surprises me is how our efforts have been received by the community who produced these standards in the first place.