Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Hector Santos <[email protected]> wrote: >> DKIM Chair wrote: >>> Then there's the question of where ADSP stands, and whether it can proceed >>> as is, >>> or needs to be changed in light of the "errata". Pasi may have some >>> comments on >>> this, and I know the working group will. We've been holding ADSP up for a >>> while, >>> and we need to release it and move it forward. >> +1. This is our own holdup on moving forward with DKIM. > > Speaking of ADSP, I am -1 on its continuation. I dont see any > significant receiver (ISP) adoption of ADSP, to be frank.
That might be because it wasn't stable. SSP was cut off and it was already part of API software. If you used the API, it include default support for Policy Lookups. So the ADSP coup d'etat did not help. Lots of work was lost. Pissed off people, to be frank. Some even feel ADSP was really a poison pill. To badly paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, some really wanted 'SSP/ADSP to fail' (not progress to draft standard), so for some there is still pessimistic feelings about it because of what happen. Fortunately, there is still some redeeming value remaining with ADSP, at least this is the reason I am still hanging around, and we should be well aware the "significant receiver (ISP)" group clearly do not represent the entire electronic mail market place. There are millions of private and HV (high value) domains, certain magnitude more than all the ISPs combined. Most private enterprises will benefit with exclusive DKIM signing policy protection. Private Vendor/User 1 to 1 communications with a high benefit and payoff is desirable. They is no expectation for public, promiscuous, open usage. No Mailing list. If eBay advertises and screams to the world "Hey, we will always sign our emails - always!", are they doing this so that others ignore that expectation? Most of our customers are private enterprises, many offer small ISP operations (they serve their own private clients). In our customer surveys and discussions, a DKIM+POLICY component has long been established as the preferred feature to add. It is also easier to promote, market and sell DKIM+POLICY, than without POLICY. It will help justify the cost of implementation. So to be frank, with respect and sincerity, I really hope what you say is not true and ADSP should be considered as a natural part of DKIM implementations, whether they need it or not. In other words, even if you don't implement DKIM, ADSP separately can still be used. See the expired I-D http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-santos-dkim-rcvd-00 proposing how a site can use partial support as a migration path. -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
