Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:
DKIM Chair wrote:
Then there's the question of where ADSP stands, and whether it can proceed
as is,
or needs to be changed in light of the "errata". Pasi may have some
comments on
this, and I know the working group will. We've been holding ADSP up for a
while,
and we need to release it and move it forward.
+1. This is our own holdup on moving forward with DKIM.
Speaking of ADSP, I am -1 on its continuation. I dont see any
significant receiver (ISP) adoption of ADSP, to be frank.
That might be because it wasn't stable. SSP was cut off and it was
already part of API software. If you used the API, it include default
support for Policy Lookups. So the ADSP coup d'etat did not help.
Lots of work was lost. Pissed off people, to be frank. Some even feel
ADSP was really a poison pill. To badly paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, some
really wanted 'SSP/ADSP to fail' (not progress to draft standard), so
for some there is still pessimistic feelings about it because of what
happen.
Fortunately, there is still some redeeming value remaining with ADSP,
at least this is the reason I am still hanging around, and we should
be well aware the "significant receiver (ISP)" group clearly do not
represent the entire electronic mail market place. There are millions
of private and HV (high value) domains, certain magnitude more than
all the ISPs combined. Most private enterprises will benefit with
exclusive DKIM signing policy protection. Private Vendor/User 1 to 1
communications with a high benefit and payoff is desirable. They is no
expectation for public, promiscuous, open usage. No Mailing list. If
eBay advertises and screams to the world "Hey, we will always sign our
emails - always!", are they doing this so that others ignore that
expectation?
Most of our customers are private enterprises, many offer small ISP
operations (they serve their own private clients). In our customer
surveys and discussions, a DKIM+POLICY component has long been
established as the preferred feature to add. It is also easier to
promote, market and sell DKIM+POLICY, than without POLICY. It will
help justify the cost of implementation.
So to be frank, with respect and sincerity, I really hope what you say
is not true and ADSP should be considered as a natural part of DKIM
implementations, whether they need it or not. In other words, even if
you don't implement DKIM, ADSP separately can still be used. See the
expired I-D http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-santos-dkim-rcvd-00
proposing how a site can use partial support as a migration path.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html