On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > So what actual operational problem does it attempt to solve? A byte > sequence in an email header field that's commonly not shown to the > user is not an operational problem. It might be a middle point in a > line of reasoning between an operational problem and ADSP.
So I understand your line of reasoning. But today, I believe ADSP can provide a benefit. Brett has data that supports that. It may have a limited lifetime. But I don't think this will be the only RFC that has a limited lifetime in the transition to an authenticated email universe. Stating the obvious, in an Authenticated world, services that were designed in a non-Authenticated world will break authentication. A complex authentication protocol might be designed to work with services that don't support authentication, but I think that is a futile attempt. It makes sense to me to go to each of these services, see if there is a consensus in the value proposition of authenticated email, and help modify those services to work in an Authenticated world. I'd also advocate not changing the authentication part to make it work with a service. That just adds complexity. My two cents. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
