+1. The only uptake we've noticed is from people who complain that the name returns a non-TXT non-fail for yahoo.com (which the standard says is a legitimate case meaning "there is no ADSP record here, move on"). So uptake looks both minimal and buggy.
Elizabeth From: Krish Vitaldevara <kris...@microsoft.com<mailto:kris...@microsoft.com>> Date: Thursday, September 12, 2013 7:33 AM To: Paul Midgen <pmi...@messagebus.com<mailto:pmi...@messagebus.com>>, Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com<mailto:dcroc...@gmail.com>> Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>" <dmarc@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ADSP to Historic? +1. And Paul, the numbers didn’t change much there. From: dmarc-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org> [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Midgen Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:12 PM To: Dave Crocker Cc: dmarc@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ADSP to Historic? ok. i know this area can be a polarizing issue, but when i planned the SPF implementation at hotmail a few years ago, i also researched the use of ADSP on our inbound mail and found that ADSP records existed for less than 0.003% of traffic where it would ostensibly have been used, and that any effect it would have had was utterly and indisputably dwarfed first by an internal domain policy system, then by DMARC. in my case it was hello nail, meet coffin. disclaimers: i am no longer a hotmail employee. that data is now at least 2 years old. there is a good chance that i'm off by a zero in either direction (not that it matters much in this case). if you want current data to bolster your case i can connect you offline with some former colleagues. From: Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com<mailto:dcroc...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:03 PM To: Paul Midgen <pmi...@messagebus.com<mailto:pmi...@messagebus.com>> Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>" <dmarc@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ADSP to Historic? On 9/11/2013 3:43 PM, Paul Midgen wrote: do you just need votes in support or something else? my vote in support: +1 to historical. awaiting instructions on "something else". ;) just looking for initial reactions, to judge whether to make the formal request. a +/- 1 certainly qualifies. thanks. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
