[ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr-00 (fwd)

[Michael Thomas]

On 06/22/2010 11:07 AM, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 06/22/2010 09:46 AM, J.D. Falk wrote:
>>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 1:00 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>
>>>> As threatened, here's an I-D that says how one would publish a list of
>>>> domains for which it makes sense to discard unsigned mail.
>>>
>>> Looks like a good start, and almost shockingly simple.  Any MTA/MFA support yet?  *grin*
>>
>> I still don't get why it's ok for John Levine to publish a list which
>> says that it's ok to discard unsigned mail from paypal.com, but st00pid
>> for paypal.com to publish the same thing. That is the essence of his
>> jihad against adsp.
>
> Because presumably verifiers will trust John's process for compiling this list more than they'd trust any random schmoe with the ability to create TXT records.
>
> (If paypal were representative of all domains, this wouldn't be a concern.)

Well that's pretty ironic because paypal.com is listed in his database
as being discardable even after he got done telling them they were incompetent
for setting their ADSP record to discardable since they mix users and transactional
mail all in the same sub domain. So it seems that John isn't any more competent
than paypal.com by his own competency test.

> Personally, I think we'll need lists like this for a while in order to gain more experience and determine best practices, and THEN we can decide whether to change (or even scrap) ADSP to reflect those practices.

Who watches the watcher?

I'm very dubious that John can do that without explict bidirectional human correspondence.
Which is no different than paypal.com publishing their ADSP record since
the people who put up the ADSP record are extremely likely to be the same people
telling John's list that they want to be set to discardable. What the value add for
the middle man is here -- besides faithfully copying errors -- is a mystery.

Mike