On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Steve Atkins
<steve(_at_)wordtothewise(_dot_)com> wrote:
So what actual operational problem does it attempt to solve? A byte
sequence in an email header field that's commonly not shown to the
user is not an operational problem. It might be a middle point in a
line of reasoning between an operational problem and ADSP.
So I understand your line of reasoning. But today, I believe ADSP can
provide a benefit. Brett has data that supports that. It may have a
limited lifetime. But I don't think this will be the only RFC that has
a limited lifetime in the transition to an authenticated email
universe.
Stating the obvious, in an Authenticated world, services that were
designed in a non-Authenticated world will break authentication. A
complex authentication protocol might be designed to work with
services that don't support authentication, but I think that is a
futile attempt. It makes sense to me to go to each of these services,
see if there is a consensus in the value proposition of authenticated
email, and help modify those services to work in an Authenticated
world. I'd also advocate not changing the authentication part to make
it work with a service. That just adds complexity.
My two cents.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html