On Wednesday 05 December 2007 15:54, Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
There is quite a lot implied by saying "defeated".
Defeated. Utterly. Trivially. It would be the equivalent to the
IETF trying to standardize an 8 bit encryption scheme.
Unfortunately, SSP is defeated out of the box, even with all of its
specified features intact.
I publish a strict record. I therefore want receivers to take note of all
mail that has my domain in the From field but is not signed by that domain.
On day one, for all intents and purposes, no recipient server on the
Internet is going to make the query for this, and hence the mechanism is
"defeated".
So all protocols that involve any kind of network exchange to work are
defeated and useless and the IETF should stop writing them? That's the
logical conclusion one can draw from this perspective. It's equally true of
all protocols the day they are minted.
It's been clear you've had your mind made up about the utility of SSP since
before the working group started. It'd be nice if you tried to be
constructive.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html