Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM in the MUA should not be the goal, just a side beni

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2006, at 6:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> > If you knew the distribution of transit times based on some
> > reasonable sample, then I'd listen. Presumably there's a bell
> > curve in there and we could argue about how many std. devs. to
> > ask signers to take into account. Anything less soundly based
> > is only as good as our charter, i.e. "a few days at most" so
> > we may as well stick with that.
> Factoring on normal successful deliveries misses an uncommon, 
How (un)common?

> but
> important, class of messages: those delayed by temporary transport 
> failures.  E.g. hardware-induced SMTP server failure, intermediate 
> network outages, system- and network-admin PEBKAC, recipient mail store 
> quota violations, and inbound SMTP server throttling (AOL, Yahoo).  All 
> of these are out of the transacting parties control (even the quota 
> case, since the receiver can't always control what gets dumped in their 
> inbox).
> What we need to examine are the stat's related to these delay scenarios, 
> and base the lifetime on those numbers, ignoring the typical successful 
> delivery case.  (My guess is that sendmail's default delivery timeout 
> will heavily influence the results.)
Real, significant, usable, numbers would be welcome. I've not seen
any.

Absent such we're back at the charter text.

S.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html