ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal

2009-10-01 17:05:15

On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Franck Martin wrote:

Is the goal of a spec, the writing of the spec itself, or to tackle  
a higher goal?

Are we forgetting the original objectives of DKIM, which was to  
reduce spam?

That wasn't a goal for DKIM. Rather the goal of DKIM was to provide  
additional data to recipients, which could be used in a number of ways.

("While the techniques specified by the DKIM working group will not   
prevent fraud or spam, they will provide a tool for defense against  
them by assisting receiving domains in detecting some spoofing of  
known domains." is the charter wording).

I hear a lot about what DKIM is not, fair enough. I hear a lot that  
DKIM is a tool and not a magic solution, fair enough too. But if we  
cannot show DKIM helps alleviating spam, then we better use everyone  
computing cycles for something useful instead.

DKIM itself cannot alleviate spam, as it's just a tool for  
authentication. That means that if the only thing you want to measure  
is "How much did DKIM deployment directly alleviate spam" then you're  
going to get an answer that's close to zero.

A more interesting question is how domain based authentication helps  
domain reputation based systems reduce false positives in spam  
filters, or how domain based feedback loops help ISPs and mailers  
avoid sending unwanted email. DKIM itself doesn't do either of those,  
it's just a platform they're based on.

I don't think we're at a point, yet, where the answer to that will be  
particularly enlightening. It may be time to start tracking the data  
if you're not already, though.

Cheers,
   Steve

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html