On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@wordtothewise.com> wrote: > > On May 26, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Steve Atkins wrote: > >> >> On May 26, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> >> Could you expand on why you think that? > > Michael claims off-list that he has no idea what I'm speaking of.
I said "huh?" too. > > So, to be more specific, I'm implicitly asking two things. > > 1. Should those domains be treated differently by the recipient ISP? perhaps the question is "are those two different entities?" I'd say as far as the recipient ISP can tell, yes. > 2. How does ADSP help them make that decision? It doesn't, nor do I think it claims to. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
