Steve Atkins wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
It sure isn't obvious to me, and I'm afraid that I'm at the end
of the road here as I can't figure out what set of axioms that either
you or Dave are operating from for that not be true. From the looks
of it, that set of axioms leads to "SSP == bad", so I again wonder
why you're wasting your time, unless it is to prevent SSP from being
published.
I like DKIM.
Publishing a bad (harmful or overly complex or with no actual benefit
or...) protocol tied closely to DKIM would be bad for DKIM
deployment.
So... I either want SSP to not be bad, or for it to not be published,
or (worst case) for it not to be widely deployed.
I'd prefer the former. If things continue as they are I'm likely to
get the latter, so if I wanted that, I could just step away from the
abuse now[1] and let y'all get on with it.
I'd rather take yet another attempt at getting people to look at the
fundamental flaws in it, and see if they can be reduced. Previous
attempts to do that haven't worked, leading to the bad protocol we
have now, but I remain optimistic that at least some of the less verbose
folks in the WG are open to such concerns.
You know Steve, this is a very long thread and you've contributed quite
a bit to it. I'll say that I have absolutely no clue what in particular
(s) you
think is screwed up. All I know is that you don't like it, and that we need
to start from first principles again.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html