----- "Steve Atkins" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > > > Is the goal of a spec, the writing of the spec itself, or to tackle > > > a higher goal? > > > > Are we forgetting the original objectives of DKIM, which was to > > reduce spam? > > That wasn't a goal for DKIM. Rather the goal of DKIM was to provide > additional data to recipients, which could be used in a number of > ways. > > ("While the techniques specified by the DKIM working group will not > > prevent fraud or spam, they will provide a tool for defense against > them by assisting receiving domains in detecting some spoofing of > known domains." is the charter wording). > > > I hear a lot about what DKIM is not, fair enough. I hear a lot that > > > DKIM is a tool and not a magic solution, fair enough too. But if we > > > cannot show DKIM helps alleviating spam, then we better use everyone > > > computing cycles for something useful instead. > > DKIM itself cannot alleviate spam, as it's just a tool for > authentication. That means that if the only thing you want to measure > > is "How much did DKIM deployment directly alleviate spam" then you're > > going to get an answer that's close to zero. > > A more interesting question is how domain based authentication helps > > domain reputation based systems reduce false positives in spam > filters, or how domain based feedback loops help ISPs and mailers > avoid sending unwanted email. DKIM itself doesn't do either of those, >
yes this is what I said, how DKIM helps alleviate spam, I did not say it alleviates spam. If you want to be more pedantic in the question, it is fine with me. I understand this WG is careful about not promising a magic potion but I'd like to have somthing like the way Steve formulates the question in the workgroup charter, so we don't forget why we do all these things. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
