Who do you feel we need to hear from at this stage to gauge interest? -- Brett
On Apr 27, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 4/27/2010 11:08 AM, McDowell, Brett wrote: >> On Apr 27, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >>> On 4/27/2010 10:40 AM, McDowell, Brett wrote: >>>> That's how I see it. The key is that Y *validates* the DKIM signature >>>> and processes the sender's ADSP >>> >>> Where is this going to be supported? That is, how widespread does anyone >>> believe that support for this scenario will be? Why? >> >> I'm not sure if you were asking this as a rhetorical question in an attempt >> to imply that such adoption would be low, or if you actually expected some of >> us who may have non-public knowledge of such plans to disclose them to this >> public mail list, or if you were soliciting speculation. In any event, I can >> only speculate. > > > I meant the question quite seriously. > > When trying to specify anything, it's important to be clear about who is the > target for adopting it and how motivated they will be and how feasible > adoption > will be within a useful timeframe. > > If the specification is only intended for Yahoo and Google and there are good > signs they will adopt it, then fine. > > If the goal is broader adoption, then Yahoo and Google can actually be > misleading examples, since they are not representative of the wider mailing > list > management software or operations community. > > d/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > 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
