As you probably recall, the focus of MARID was on LMAP solutions, SPF namely. The reputation proposals have the same problems we had here. It was never a surprise to see the same issues - a Reputation protocol requires Batteries and a market we were not ready for. DKIM's pins on the side are the same issues and reasons CSV/DNA went nowhere. We lost focus on securing author-domain operations foremost. The 3rd party should of been secondary , and if I recall that was the original charter - see how to fit list systems in after the fact. Instead, it became a principle 3rd party anyone can sign without restriction protocol and author domains lost all controls.
I find it difficult, yet interesting to see how DKIM can work well in this mode. It risk if not already, of become a high bandwidth mail stamping protocol that serves very little purpose and without a doubt absolutely no purpose in the world of anonymous mail transaction where all the problems exist. We don't have a real problem with known transactions and we certainly don't need DKIM for that. Mark Delany wrote: >>> DKIM should be viewed as a Work-In-Progress still missing a viable >>> policy layer. >> +1. But 5+ years WIP? :) It wasn't rocket science. > > Well, 7+ years ago it was suggested that "Domain policy is nascent" > with the stated expectation that MARID would soon develop something > comprehensive to satisfy our needs... > > Apropos rocket science, at our current rate of progress we risk > outliving the Space Shuttle program. > > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > > -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
