> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Request to move RFC 5617 > (ADSP) to Historic > > On 9/11/13 6:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I also agree with this proposal. I don't have much to add over the > > text in the formal request; it lays out the case based on my > > experience implementing DKIM and ADSP in open source. I can also say > that I have never encountered an operation that actively uses it, including > current and previous employers. > > It doesn't help that ADSP's author actively wanted to subvert it. >
You made that assertion when the working group was working on ADSP. I disagreed with John on a number of points at the time but I wouldn't call those differences of opinion an attempt on his part to subvert ADSP. Various folks compromised to get the spec out the door. I think that was perhaps because what happened with the MARID working group was in the back of people's minds. If I had a do-over I might not be so willing to compromise. It's water under the bridge. > As far as I can tell, DMARC is warmed over ADSP with a different set of > participants to claim credit for their original ideas. > I think you need to look more closely. Many people realized very quickly that ADSP had significant flaws that made implementation extremely risky for both senders and mailbox providers. There were a number of private efforts to move email authentication forward. DMARC was only one of them. Some of those private efforts were premised on a pay-to-play model. DMARC was premised on creating an open standard that worked instead of a private club. A number of the participants in DMARC.org were also active participants in the ADSP discussions. We all learned from operational experience interacting through private channels. The problems with ADSP and how to move past them were certainly a point of discussion (in all the groups I participated in - how could it not be?). The initial attempts were one-on-one pairs of senders and receivers and it was very quickly realized that a standard way of communicating and reporting was needed. ADSP never had reporting on the radar screen and alig! nment with SPF wasn't a factor either. I haven't seen any of the DMARC participants thumping their chests seeking credit. I see folks from various organizations that needed to solve a problem and having seen positive results in a closed environment felt that an open solution was better than a closed one. As far as credit, J.D. Falk deserves mention for DMARC even though he didn't live to see it come to fruition. I'd like to think that J.D. is smiling somewhere at how far we have come. And yes, he was an active participant in the DKIM/ADSP effort among his many other anti-spam efforts.. Just a few thoughts. Apologies to anyone offended by ths trip down memory lane. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
