When it comes to discussing SSP I hear a lot of noise with very little
reason to implement or use except in a few specific cases like highly
phished sites. My 2 cents
Thanks,
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:17 PM
To: DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change
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 quite explicit.
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...
I guess they don't know much about the topic or anti-abuse
recipient operations behavior, so it's probably ok to keep this an
individual ad hominem dismissal.
Saying that you need broad consensus to change the documented
consensus is hardly an ad hominem dismissal.
I've tried to recruit postings by some other anti-abuse folks who
have expressed strongly negative opinions, but they have declined,
indicating that they try to avoid being abused, and do not see any
indication of interest in serious discussion about this in this
group.
From the style of quite a few postings on the list, can you blame
them?
Ah, the silent majority. Still silent after all these years.
... but this working group has people who are prepared to spend
a lot of time to shout down those they disagree with, leading to an
unproductive and unprofessional environment. I find the lack of
courtesy and professionalism here unpleasant enough that I tend
not to get involved much, even though I see very poor design
decisions being made.
It's unavoidable to some degree - any mention of "antispam" tends
to bring the noisy kooks out of the woodwork - but it's not going to
lead to a well-engineered, useful protocol.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html