On 05/26/2010 09:58 AM, Steve Atkins wrote: > 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" >
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? John is wrong: ADSP allows them to get rid of the "special case" handling by Y! and G. This is hardly controversial. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
