Steve Atkins wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
And as far as I can tell, you alone seem to be carrying this torch
here. Changing what we agreed on with rfc5016 should require a very
high barrier. I see little if any support, let alone broad consensus
that we got it wrong.
You still didn't respond: did you read 5016 before it was issued?
In fact I know that you did because you gave a lot of very detailed
feedback. And this was not one of the thing you commented on at the
time, so charges of "paradigm change" ring rather hollow.
So, you missed the postings by Levine and Atkins? (Perhaps some
others were on "my" side of this topic, but these two were at least
I didn't read them as supporting your reading. Let them speak for
themselves. There are a lot of things being discussed, after all.
I broadly agree with most of Dave's concerns...
Believe it or not, I agree with some of Dave's too. But that isn't
the issue at hand. The specific issue is whether *any* DKIM signature
from *any* domain should be sufficient to qualify for "strict" or "all".
Do you agree with that or not?
In a well-designed protocol based on DKIM, yes I'd agree that a
validly DKIM signed message should not provoke an SSP query.
This is rather astonishing, and then you go on to say:
I think RFC 5016 shows a lack of understanding of DKIM (or is choosing
not to consider some important features of DKIM), and is
part of the push to try and build a next generation SPF on
an inappropriate base authentication technology.
Gee thanks, I am new on this block I guess.
In any case, the problem that I'm having with a lot of the nay-sayers
is that it is purely destructive rather than constructive feedback.
The feedback is always of the nature of this is wrong, not what will
correct the problem. When I raise issues, I suggest a change to make
the spec better. If you don't suggest concrete changes to the draft,
it's really sort of hard to take you or anybody else seriously.
Frankly if you think this is just a piece of junk, I really don't
understand why you or Dave or John waste your time.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to