[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review

[Jeff Macdonald]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:29 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
<MHammer at ag.com> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
>> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
>> So the exchange is more likely to be:
>>
>> 1) message sent with restrictive policies
>> 2) message bounces/is discarded
>> 3) recipient feels unloved, asks Author why?
>> 4) Author looks at logs and sees message was delivered, asks recipient
>> to ask their ISP why
>> 5) recipient asks ISP why
>> 6) recipient gets an answer from ISP (really?)
>>
>>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Are you telling us that your clients are sending mail through your systems using ADSP=discardable? If not, what are the restrictive policies indicated in item "1)"?

Sorry, that was a generalization. I don't see us promoting ADSP. We
are not doing DKIM yet (about to pilot any week now). I just wrote
some documentation for client services in which I left out ADSP on
purpose. Although I do feel that ADSP is fine for marketing domains, I
suspect that our clients want all their messages delivered.

However, we do strict SPF/SenderID. Simply because of mandates by
certain groups or ISPs. And we'll publish ADSP records for clients who
ask for it.

> For item "3)", can you indicate generally the nature of the mails involved? Are these transactional? marketing? Where's the love?

Both. Believe it or not, some people live for bargains and haven't
discovered what a RSS reader can provide.

> Just trying to understand.

#1 could be shortened to "message sent" and the rest would still be true.


-- 
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA