> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:43 AM > To: Wietse Venema; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing > > We are left in the realm of "the operation was a success but the patient > died". If this where we want to be?
That's a pretty neat framing of the question. > What is the value proposition that DKIM offers that incentivizes people > to adopt it? I'll take a crack at that: DKIM offers the MUA enough data to know what parts of a message to be rendered can be considered "valid" inasmuch as someone (the signer) took responsibility for it. How it's rendered is up to the MUA. We certainly, and probably should, provide some advice in this area to MUA implementations, but we haven't the teeth to demand it. > I am not suggesting that we boil the ocean. I am suggesting that we can > realistically address this class of problem without having to "fix" the > world. Failure to address it significantly alters the value proposition > of DKIM..... in a negative manner. Since we're all big on analogies, how about: Experian can give you the rating of someone applying for credit. Whether or not you pay attention to that information in making your credit decision is entirely up to you. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
