You do realize that this just give people ammunition to throw the book at anyone for violating IETF standards. Its a fact, they would be violating a IETF standard if they break mail knowing FULL well there is an technology specifically designed to protected against such abuse.
If a ISP or anyone is intentionally violating an RFC and pushing back into broken mail into the network that can potentially harm a domain or end-users, they are no doubt putting themselves at risk and any smart high tech lawyer would be licking his chops if the VENDOR is a big buck organization. Why continue with this nonsense contentious issue when the solution is simple: 1) Respect RFC 5617 2) Update it to support resigners 3) Or get rid of it. This on-going idea that it can exist but IGNORED is not a good idea and is bound to bite people in the butt. -- Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: i...@sussex.ac.uk [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:53 AM >> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; John R. Levine; Daniel Black >> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the >> receiving side >> >>> Another data point: Google Mail won't use ADSP because they will not >>> discard someone's mail outright without a written agreement from the >>> sending domain agreeing to same, absolving them of responsibility for >>> mail that never arrives. >> You mean that they won't publish ADSP records? Or that they won't >> respect >> any ADSP records? Or that they won't discard "discardable" messages? > > They won't honour ADSP "dkim=discardable" records posted by others. > >> Logically, none of these things follow. Publishing ADSP records doesn't >> mean that Google will discard anything, though it does grant permission >> for >> others to do so. They have lots of other things that they can do as a >> result of ADSP fails. Presumably, they'd be more aggressive with >> quarantining mail if there's an ADSP record that renders a specific >> email >> discardable. Heck, they could even argue that publication of >> "dkim=discardable" does absolve them. > > I'm only relaying what I was told at a conference. You're free to contact > them for an explanation beyond what I've said. > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html