On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:54:47 -0400 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Some have opined that it's even too early to consider taking the base
DKIM protocol to Draft Standard; let's make sure we have consensus on
that point, one way or the other.
I'm going to re-iterate my point for this perspective. We do not
yet have
a broad experience base with deployment of DKIM by large,
heterogeneous
organizations. This is a hard problem for them because they first
have to
get their outbound mail architecture under control.
It's actually a very easy problem, or at least an incremental one,
as there's no need whatsoever to get all their mail architecture
under control at once.
Attaching a DKIM token to an outbound mail benefits that mail,
even if other mail from the same sender doesn't have a token. The
potential benefit to each individual mail increases as more mail
has the same token, but it starts as soon as some mail has it.
So DKIM can be deployed incrementally, one server, one
location or one application at a time, and will add benefit
to senders of wanted email immediately.
My view is that these types of deployments are the ones that will
teach us
the most about the protocol and we are at least a year and maybe two
or
three from getting significant experience/feedback to support
progressing
DKIM along the standards track.
Perhaps.
I don't think that that particular decision is going to affect
real world deployment at all, though, so it's not something
I see as desperately important either way.
I do think that any plan that's based on actually changing
the protocol in two or three years time in any way that's
not localized to a black box MTA implementation, is likely
to be unfruitful.
A widely deployed base of a "good enough" implementation
is going to be hard to change, for the social reasons I
suspect most people here are familiar with.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html