On May 25, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Like I said, "throw away anything that doesn't have our signature" has >> some chance of broad adoption. Every extra word you add to the message >> makes it less likely that people will do it. >> > I agree with this. I have yet to see any proposals for additions that didn't > either add enough complexity to act as a barrier to deployment or alternately > make it trivially possible to allow third parties to create messages that > render discardable moot.
I agree that adding anything to "throw away anything that doesn't have our signature" add complexity to implementation and therefore, by definition, is a barrier to adoption. That's not what we are debating. What we are debating is whether such complexity is a necessary evil that we should provide a specification to support -- as an optional mechanism for stakeholders who want to opt-in to the authenticated email ecosystem. I *think* the answer is "yes". But we haven't yet had the meaningful debate that will resolve that question. Let's debate whether transient trust through a MLM is actionable. Would a new header that enabled the MLM to report to the receiver that they indeed validated the original signature actually make any difference in the deliverability of that message to the receiver, and if yes, is that actually a good thing? I say "yes" and "yes". But I expect that if we debate this specific point one of you might highlight an unintended consequence that would tip the balance away from pursuing such a model. Thoughts? -- Brett _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
