----- "Steve Atkins" <steve(_at_)wordtothewise(_dot_)com> wrote:
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,
yes this is what I said, how DKIM helps alleviate spam, I did not say it
alleviates spam. If you want to be more pedantic in the question, it is fine
with me.
I understand this WG is careful about not promising a magic potion but I'd like
to have somthing like the way Steve formulates the question in the workgroup
charter, so we don't forget why we do all these things.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html