On May 1, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: > Steve Atkins wrote: >> On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Arvel Hathcock wrote: >> >> >>> So, from the receiver side, I don't have a problem with the >>> "treewalking" - whether it stays or goes. I don't see it's >>> existence as >>> the huge problem that others do but if it disappeared tomorrow this >>> would not destroy the essence of ADSP (it would just increase it's >>> deployment complexity). >>> >> >> It would increase deployment complexity for senders. >> >> It would decrease deployment complexity for receivers. >> > > That's true, but you also need to consider the nature and degree of > deployment complexity required. > > Senders who want full coverage would need to either add new ADSP > records for all their hosts or deploy new (and, as far as I know, > currently nonexistent) DNS tools to automatically publish ADSP > records for all of their hosts.
Not at all. It's a purely internal matter. It has no impact outside the site of someone who has chosen to use ADSP. It's less important than it being purely a voluntary effort for ADSP users, but there's also no need for them to deploy or develop new tools to do so. If they can publish an A record, they can publish a TXT record with little extra effort. > > > Otherwise, eceivers would need to deploy an ADSP implementation that > queries the parent domain, as currently described in SSP-03. Other > than that, they don't need to do anything special. Which would add a network session for every inbound email, whether that email was sent by an ADSP user or not. Increasing the latency of inbound mail processing is a significant cost. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
