On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:25 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
Doug,
In lieu of no MUA that currently supports your DKIM address book
ideas, are you suggesting that every SMTP or MUA system that is
waiting for the standardization of DKIM will also have to use
Levine's and Hoffman's new non-standard, untested, unverified, no
threat analysis, commercial DAC venture in order to get any PAYOFF
or BENEFIT from DKIM?
In other words, are you saying without DAC, DKIM is useless?
DAC provides guidelines for creating these lists, if I am not
mistaken. So not even DAC offers a full-up solution, just as DKIM
does not either. There are some start-ups already offering plugins
for the popular web and email-clients based upon their own lists. I
can obtain that today, and months prior.
Is this the reason why SSP is being brushed aside? Because the DAC
group have succeeded in clouding the SSP picture and non facts that
it work hence the non-standard DAC should be used instead with DKIM?
I suspect that all methods that enable recipients the ability to
protect themselves will be tried. A restrictive SSP however will
create the greatest trouble for the least benefit. There are areas
of weakness that can be repaired using associative techniques, from
protecting a white-list to protecting the MailFrom.
The why are we wasting time with SSP requirements. If enough
people here are so CONVINCE that DAC is the ultimate technology to
be used with DKIM, why they do do an official IETF I-D proposal?
Why did Paul Hoffman, one of the Key IETF GODS, stray away from
using the IETF to standardized DAC?
Even waving a magic wand will not overcome several issues that need
to be resolved such as protecting white-listing, the MailFrom, and
allowing sign-domains to be used for annotation without the sharing
of private-keys. All of this becomes possible with the right type of
policy where recipients are better protected, email delivery is not
negatively affected, and there is greater freedom of choice regarding
how a domain is associated with their provider.
I'm sorry, you have to excuse me, but I am engineer at heart, and
none of this make sense to me. Too much politics and self-interest
for me going on here.
This is not about politics or self-interest, other than also being
someone that uses email. DKIM will make life better, but associative
schemes will not shift benefits to one group or the other, just away
from the bad-actors.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
