John Levine wrote:
Please stop all this ADSP "good"/ADSP "bad" repetition.
I am specifically proposing that we withdraw it as
standards track and resubmit it as experimental,
because that's what it is.
-1
A better suggestion is to pass the baton to someone else.
Two comments:
First, if this is going to be the case, the IETF should allow a new
proposal replacement proposal (like SSP) to take its place for
standards track. Preferably, handled by someone that believes in it,
can champion it, is willing to get his teeth pulled and pulled some
himself. Foremost, not waste people's time.
Second, DKIM is experiment too. You said so yourself:
"When we have a better understanding of how people use DKIM,
how the various identities are used, and how signatures break,
maybe then we can consider whether there are self-assertions
that would be useful to receivers."
Well, it is clear to you that people do not know how DKIM will be
used. That is an experiment. You are questioning the unknown, how
the valid, failed signatures and no signatures will not only be
interpreted but more importantly - tolerated. A factor you have
dismissed all these years.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html