Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Lets say we set aside ADSP, as you suggest, and just consider
reputation evaluation. Do you believe there are any people
who'd not find that that level of authentication tunneling
entirely adequate for their needs?
But ADSP is in scope of the charter work, and Reputation work is out
of scope. Unfortunately, we allowed this type of external reputation
working mindset to alter, twist and turn the DKIM WG drafts creating
confusion and consensus chaos making it hard to completing the
chartered goals.
Accept POLICY as a WG work item and maybe we can come to complete this
work and maybe many more systems can begin to get more DKIM/ADSP adoption.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html