J.D. Falk wrote:
On 2007-03-12 16:51, Hector Santos wrote:
I tend to side with the high probability that blindly signing MAIL in
a DKIM-BASE only manner (with no helper support, and I presume you are
just against SSP, not other kind of helpers, like DAC or some other
yet to be established reputation helper)
Hmm, not sure who you're arguing with here -- can't be me, I'm not
against SSP. Never have been. I just don't think it's a good idea to
continue telling the world that DKIM isn't ready.
We can probably drive a car with just the frame, engine, wheels, etc but
no body yet and get good use of it. You will be exposed to the elements
of the world during the process of using it, but its usable. Some
people won't care and some people actually like the eating bugs. Some
will be excited to have it now. However, I'm sure most people will
prefer that there was "added security," "a helper,", "a wrapper," "a
blanket," "a body" that helps protects you from the elements.
So is the frame ready? Sure, 100%, it still has its kinks. But is it
ready. I don't think anyone disputes that.
But is it ready for public consumption? Has all the engineering been
worked out so that its SAFE to be used in the public? Does it present
any liability issues? Is an early release better with the risk of
creation a wide tertiary market of "different helper" systems in the
name of getting exposure and experience with this "frame-" work., or is
better to have an augmenting IETF standard helper technology?
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html