ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP

2006-09-08 10:32:03
On 9/8/06, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:


John Levine wrote:
>> 2.  I don't care about the breakage and I'd prefer you reject unsigned mail.
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fundamental question here
> is why should the recipient care what the sender claims he prefers?
>
> Anytime you send e-mail to someone, you're basically asking them to do
> you a large favor by investing the effort to accept and deliver it.
> Senders don't get to set rules about what recipients can do.


or will do or should do.

bang on, John!


discussion on the list continues to use a perspective that sounds like
the sender gets to dictate things, rather than that the receiver has the
option of using information.

at every turn we should start by asking how a feature will benefit the
receive-side and what our basis is for believing that they will *see*
that benefit (and hence be motivated to use it)?

d/

Innovator: Hey I got a great idea, how about we slice the bread first
before we sell it.

A: (from this group) How do we know the customer will benefit from it?
What about people that like thick bread? You know.. we will have to
change all the toasters to accept our new slice width. How do we know
how thick to slice it?

I don't think there is an argument for what the receiver should do
with the message. The sender is offering a suggested course of action
(take 2 call me in the morning) I hope that we are not going to go
down the road of "What will the receiver do with it?" and have a
zillion threads on this. Waste of breath or digit strength.
I think that it would be OK to say that the sender is going to suggest
of course of action for the receiver. It is not a dictation, much like
the suggested dosage of exlax- Ignore at your own peril.

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