Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi All,
Eliot's updated the tracker [1] with all Dave's
new issues.
If anyone else has any SSP issues they'd like to
raise, now would be a good time. I'll chat a bit
with Barry and get back to the list with a plan
for processing these,
Hi Stephen,
Here's one that I hope will quickly eliminate a good portion of them:
NEW ISSUE: Reputation is out of scope or define it.
Out of scope, undefined Reputation considerations continues to be the
prime source of diffusion, contention and conflicts in reaching a SSP WG
completion. It has been abusing the SSP WG process.
Unless it is clearly defined what is meant by reputation and how it is
related, I suggest that we remove all reputation considerations from SSP
discussions or drafts and reinforce that it is out of scope.
If we wish to begin talking about reputation, then we need to begin to
defined it beyond its pure White/Black behavior which is already a
widely adopted industry practice and well understood to apply in local
policy receiver decisions.
I don't believe SSP, nor DKIM-BASE nor any other technology XYZ will
alter or replace local policy decisions. However as part of the local
policy decision process, I believe the SSP design goal was such that
DKIM and SSP will be part of the total decision making process and to
help protect against certain high potential exploitations of DKIM signers.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html