Michael,
I take some level resentment to the "old frog" statements.
List based operations is still a viable part of our market place. As a
commercial vendor of a integrated mail system that includes a MLS
component, it is clearly something that is used as an everything thing
for many use cases. While some old frogs are mostly list operators
and use LIST systems predominantly one way, the old frog software
people have to create it with features for a wide range of
implementations usages.
This old frog is saying is that we are asked to do something new
(DKIM) for our MLS software, then it has to be engineered right to
support ADSP as well. It can't be ignored.
But I can see other old FROG operators are stuck with a plug and play
situation where they can only sign mail blindly. We can't do anything
about legacy operations and you are correct that we should not allow
the legacy Old Frog list operator dictate what can't be done or done
as a standard for all list usages.
We can do something with new technology being incorporated by active
systems. We can create consistent protocol engineered drafting among
the standard and informational RFC and I-Ds.
That is really all this old frog is looking for. No "Rippet" mas!
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
Michael Thomas wrote:
On 09/01/2010 02:49 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
If your goal is to have MLM developers rewrite their perfectly working
code to work around the fundamental flaws in ADSP - a protocol nobody
other than bulk mailers is interested in, and which in any even
marginally sane deployment would never interact with mailing lists at
all - I think you're going to be disappointed.
"No Mr. Bond, I want you to die".
Setting aside ADSP for a second, I think there are still some people that
would like to see MLMs preserve author signatures for the purposes of
reputation evaluation.
The implicit argument being made amongst the more vocal set here is that
since mailing lists coexisted with cavemen and dinosaurs, that their very
antiquity puts them beyond the scope of evolution. That if it wasn't
intelligently designed in o those 5000 years ago, that they have no
responsibility for the current internet's trials and tribulations.
The fact of the matter is that mailing lists survival or extinction
is utterly irrelevant to the internet at large; if we did harm to them,
nobody using the internet at large would care. Hence all of this hand
wringing about whether mailing list developers or operators will
petulantly stamp their feet and take their marbles home presumes they
have power they do not actually hold.
This draft shouldn't be starting from the perspective of what reactionary
old fogies will or won't do. It should be starting from the perspective
of what's right for email as it's actually used today. If what's right
is that unsigned mail should become a pariah -- which I suspect is the
right thing -- then all of the howls of indignation should just be ignored.
And as is always the case, the whiners will figure something out if the,
uh, laser is positioned correctly.
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