John R. Levine wrote:
Shorter summary: The WG charter says there should be
Yes, there was considerable naive optimism in the charter.
We all agree that it would be great to have a scheme to spoof-proof mail.
But ADSP isn't it, for the reasons we've all gone over,
which were?
no matter how much we might wish that it were.
-1. The only wish I have is that stop injecting misinformation.
Any domain that publishes a DKIM=DISCARDABLE and for any receiver that
supports ADSP will immediately protect the Author Domain and the
receiver system from further abuse from:
1) ALL legacy (non-signed mail) DOMAIN spoof attempts at
the receiver.
1) All 3rd party signed mail NOT EXPECTED by the Author Domain
regardless if its was a malicious reply or a stupid list
server ignoring RFC 5617.
Both are huge immediate payoffs for the domain and receiver. To deny
this high benefit is being intentionally ignorant.
I can assure you that Paypal and eBay are quite aware of DKIM and ADSP,
and I have personally heard them encourage ISPs to drop unsigned mail
purporting to be from them due to the amount of forgery. Nonetheless,
they don't publish ADSP.
Well, maybe if the WG can get a true champion of POLICY and not one
that selfishly took over SSP with the sole clever confessing purpose
of creating a non-working protocol poison pill, then could change.
No one can take any POLICY opposition serious from one that author's a
document he doesn't support.
Your input is extremely bias and a conflict of interest to the WG
participants who have interest in seeing a POLICY system work.
But you know, I don't blame you. I blame the CHAIRS for allowing this
to occur. It is surreal! It is completely wrong to have you as the
author of a draft standard you don't even want PEOPLE to support.
Is that crazy or what?
This tells me that I'm not the only one who
thinks that there isn't a business case for ADSP.
Thats crazy!
--
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html