On May 26, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Brett McDowell wrote: > I respectfully disagree with you. > > We *were* a special case. Soon we will not be a special case because ADSP > will enable all mailbox providers, if they choose, to do for others what they > have historically done for us. That's the big win that only ADSP could ever > enable. > > Apparently such an announcement is going to come as a surprise to many of you > on this list, but it shouldn't. It's the logical conclusion of the ADSP work.
I'm big on concrete examples. So how does your logical conclusion deal with these two situations? $ host -t txt _adsp._domainkey.paypaI.me _adsp._domainkey.paypaI.me descriptive text "dkim=discardable" $ host -t txt _adsp._domainkey.paypal.com _adsp._domainkey.paypal.com descriptive text "dkim=discardable" Cheers, Steve > > -- Brett > > > > On May 26, 2010, at 11:55 AM, John Levine wrote: > >>> Problem = phishing >>> Utility = just one sender + two mailbox providers have blocked over >>> 100 million phishing attacks, many of those blocks also resulted in >>> site take-downs. >> >>> The value of what we already have from your efforts in IETF is HUGE >> for consumer protection. >> >> I believe this is a big win for DKIM, which I hope we can tell the world >> about. >> >> It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ADSP, since the two mailbox >> providers are (quite reasonably) treating paypal and ebay as a special >> case. >> >>> It could be even more useful with the kind of tweaks I've suggested >>> for MLM's... and probably a few more flags/states for ADSP. >> >> We've gone around enough times why this would be bad for Paypal and >> bad for everyone else, so I'll stop now. >> >> R's, >> John >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
