On Jan 24, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Summary of proposal:
All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed
message
needs to be removed.
I would take this further: remove all text that says when to apply
SSP. Instead, provide text that states the contribution that SSP
can make under different conditions: mail with valid first-party
signature, mail with valid third-party signature, and mail without
valid signature.
+1
If for no other reason than the obvious fact that SSP is not making
progress as it stands. We need some sort of reset if we hope to
proceed.
Its unfortunate that it has nothing to do with technical reasons but
the powers that are pushing reputations instead. The fact is,
Dave's never cared for SSP and its spelled out in his deployment
guide, and the other guy pushing his reputation service has no room
for SSP because SSP threatens that service business.
It is would be one thing to kill SSP for its technical merits, but
no one has SHOWN it is flawed system. NO one.
Sure they have. Numerous times. Anyone who doesn't recognize that it
has flaws is, honestly, not technically knowledgeable enough to be able
to offer anything useful to the spec development.
That SSP has some serious flaws isn't, in itself, a reason not to
develop
it and deploy it. But if the people who are developing the specification
are not capable of recognizing that there are flaws, we have a problem.
Purely based on self interest, and unfortunately we have a few cogs
who are masters of getting things KILLED if they want it to DIE.
It is a very SAD that not enough the technical developers are here
to mandate the direction.
On the contrary. It's those with most technical experience who see the
flaws in it, generally.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html