havnt been keeping up with all of the threads so forgive me if I am repeating
earlier arguments
ADSP is crippled, intentionally so. Its usefulness is limited to financial
transaction types of transactions that may well be easily duplicated with a
whale lamp, quill and parchment rbl management.
DKIM is useful to determine who actually sent the mail. 1/2 of SPAM has valid
DKIM signatures, the other half (bots) dont use it. It is a decent indicator
that is useful along with all of the other tools on the belt. Its not a
standalone fixall.
carry on,
Bill
On Jun 2, 2010, at 4:21 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Brett McDowell
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 3:46 PM
To: John R. Levine
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong
Discussion
<SNIP>
What surprises me is how our efforts have been received by the
community
who produced these standards in the first place.
Brett, I'm sorry you are surprised.
This space has been contentious going back something like 10 years (or
more). Many of the participants go at it tong and hammer but we can
still sit down for dinner or a drink at the usual gatherings.
Truth be told, the Financial sector (including PayPal) as well as other
key groups have been pretty much MIA from a lot of the discussions for a
long time. Many of the points of contention have been discussed ad
nauseum over the years without resolution or through compromises that
gave us crippled outcomes like ADSP.
Actually, IETF has been somewhat mild compared to MARID <G>.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html