On 9/11/13 8:18 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > 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 al! ignment with SPF wasn't a factor either. > >
The list of things DMARC does that ADSP doesn't in its appendix, is a trip down memory lane of constraints that were placed on it by the against-it-before-they-were-for it set. True SPF wasn't ever on its radar -- SPF has its own policy language, so nobody wanted to touch that. And ARF was progressing at the time as it's own spec, so we weren't completely clueless about its need. But instead of actually working to make a better spec at the time, we had an author whose goal was to subvert it, and endless idiotic flamewars about what the actual name of the draft should be as the main priorities. The really sad thing about this is that they pissed away 6+ years due to the intrigue. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
