Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Tony Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Given the state of flux for ADSP, there was no way that our ISP services >> would even consider deploying it until after it was published. Now that >> it's closer, our ISP services certainly have plans for deployment. > > Most of ADSP has been, so far, an attempt to introduce (sometimes > ridiculously) fine grained reputation scoring for vendors, and clients > of vendors.
Can you explain where in the specification this is stated? I really hope we can finally finish a DKIM Policy protocol and this time by keeping the unstable, lack of a standard reputations ideas out of scope as we try to finish up ADSP and get it to draft standard. I hope the WG chairs will help keep the WG focus of the prize - an IETF standard policy layer/protocol for DKIM and not allow out of scope reputation ideas to ruin it once again as it did for SSP the past years. I am not suggesting reputation should not be part of the a deployment plan. No doubt it will useful to handle the indeterminate conditions. But it has to be viewed as independent consideration if we are going to get ADSP finished. We need a standard approach for DKIM and POLICY(). Reputation() will be different with many systems. It can be local and/or remote, but I wouldn't pin our hopes nor would it be desirable to have a *single* centralized certification, reputation, domain assurance vendor controlling the market. I hope we can keep this motivation out of scope as we move ADSP forward. -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
