John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The reason you >>should consider these issues isn't that they're my opinion or that I >>have some authority to make you do so, but rather that (IMHO) the >>issues are worth considering. Since I explained the issues in a fair >>amount of detail, I figure people can make their own assessment on >>this point. > > We did. This is a rehash of old arguments. The consensus has always > been what I said, there's no reputation system that's anywhere near > ready to standardize, and DKIM is plenty useful as is since we have > specific useful applications in mind.
So you say, but IMO the arguments have never been addressed adequately. I realize that people find it frustrating to have to explain themselves repeatedly, but I'm pretty familiar with the available literature and analysis on DKIM and I don't feel that it's adequate. If there's something that you'd like me to read that you think does a good job, I'd appreciate a pointer. However, in the absence of that analysis, it's not clear to me what the importance of that consensus is. -Ekr _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
