On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:33 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- >> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John Levine >> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:21 AM >> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong >> Discussion >> > > <snip> > >> >> Here's a thought experiment: let's say you have your list of domains >> that are known to be phish targets that sign their mail, so you drop >> unsigned mail, and they all happen to publish ADSP. Someone's ADSP >> record goes away. Is it more likely that they've stopped signing >> their mail, or that their ADSP record is temporarily messed up? Why? >> > Signing their mail does not equal ADSP. "Knowing" they sign their mail > does not equal ADSP. As you have pointed out, ADSP does not equal manual > drop lists. > > The fact that someone's ADSP record - absent any other data points - > goes away, tells us nothing other than their ADSP record went away. > There could be any number of reasons as to why it went away. > > Are we now going to have to write a draft for casting goat bones to > determine the meaning of standards implementations and operational > practices? > > It's really quite simple.
Agreed. BTW, I'm actually agreeing to this statement in the context it was made :-) > If there is no longer an ADSP record then ADSP > is not applicable. Well, you'd process that mail as if... there were no ADSP policy because... there's no ADSP policy. Do we really need to publish informational guidance on this point? If yes, then let's do it. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
