[ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr-00(fwd)
MH Michael Hammer (5304)
MHammer at ag.com
Thu Jun 24 11:37:14 PDT 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:00 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim]New Version Notification for draft-levine-dbr-
> On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:03 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> > If an organization doesn't understand the implications of publishing
> > ADSP (or doing anything else for that matter) then the basic damage
> > is to themselves and their users. Their domain, their problem.
> ... and the problem of the recipients of their mail, and a support
> for the ISP of those recipients.
Form response... (I'm putting it tersely) "You need to go speak with the
folks at example.com as they are the ones creating the problem". If
enough receiving domains stood their ground on this it would quickly
become a non-issue. This is no different than receivers blocking MTAs
that are open relays. THAT doesn't seem to be much of a topic for
conversation these days.
> When an ISP starts dealing with complaints about the quality of their
> service they will make the obvious operational decision and cease
> ADSP to discard email.
Nothing in the ADSP spec says that the ISP has to silently drop the
mail. For all you know the ISP may choose to automatically send a notice
to the intended recipient indicating that they dropped mail from
example.com based on the published request from example.com and that if
the enduser has any questions they should contact
postmaster at example.com.
I LOVE hypotheticals. For every seemingly reasonable hypothetical you
come up with I'm sure that others can come up with one just as
reasonable that shows an alternative outcome.
> They might well continue discarding non-DKIM signed mail from some
> of ADSP publishers.
That wouldn't be particularly useful for senders or receivers. How does
this differ from the pre-ADSP situation where a handful of large senders
cut private deals with a handful of large receivers? The whole point is
to come up with a standard so that it is A) open and B) scalable. What
you are suggesting is neither.
> I think that's a perfectly reasonable operational result, but I don't
> think it's the one that those signing with ADSP intended.
More information about the ietf-dkim