Michael, I take some level resentment to the "old frog" statements.
List based operations is still a viable part of our market place. As a commercial vendor of a integrated mail system that includes a MLS component, it is clearly something that is used as an everything thing for many use cases. While some old frogs are mostly list operators and use LIST systems predominantly one way, the old frog software people have to create it with features for a wide range of implementations usages. This old frog is saying is that we are asked to do something new (DKIM) for our MLS software, then it has to be engineered right to support ADSP as well. It can't be ignored. But I can see other old FROG operators are stuck with a plug and play situation where they can only sign mail blindly. We can't do anything about legacy operations and you are correct that we should not allow the legacy Old Frog list operator dictate what can't be done or done as a standard for all list usages. We can do something with new technology being incorporated by active systems. We can create consistent protocol engineered drafting among the standard and informational RFC and I-Ds. That is really all this old frog is looking for. No "Rippet" mas! -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com Michael Thomas wrote: > On 09/01/2010 02:49 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> If your goal is to have MLM developers rewrite their perfectly working >>> code to work around the fundamental flaws in ADSP - a protocol nobody >>> other than bulk mailers is interested in, and which in any even >>> marginally sane deployment would never interact with mailing lists at >>> all - I think you're going to be disappointed. > > "No Mr. Bond, I want you to die". > >> Setting aside ADSP for a second, I think there are still some people that >> would like to see MLMs preserve author signatures for the purposes of >> reputation evaluation. > > The implicit argument being made amongst the more vocal set here is that > since mailing lists coexisted with cavemen and dinosaurs, that their very > antiquity puts them beyond the scope of evolution. That if it wasn't > intelligently designed in o those 5000 years ago, that they have no > responsibility for the current internet's trials and tribulations. > > The fact of the matter is that mailing lists survival or extinction > is utterly irrelevant to the internet at large; if we did harm to them, > nobody using the internet at large would care. Hence all of this hand > wringing about whether mailing list developers or operators will > petulantly stamp their feet and take their marbles home presumes they > have power they do not actually hold. > > This draft shouldn't be starting from the perspective of what reactionary > old fogies will or won't do. It should be starting from the perspective > of what's right for email as it's actually used today. If what's right > is that unsigned mail should become a pariah -- which I suspect is the > right thing -- then all of the howls of indignation should just be ignored. > And as is always the case, the whiners will figure something out if the, > uh, laser is positioned correctly. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
