-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 6:00 AM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ADSP stats
Which is still higher than how SPF started out, yet, SPF took off due
to its high promotion. Since there is no promotion of ADSP, watered
down, and it was made harder to deal with 3rd party scenarios, with
the refusal to make the necessary corrections, IMV, the exploration
has becomes questionable and limited. We have to promote it if we
want to properly measure its adoption.
I don't get the feeling that there's enthusiasm promoting ADSP because of its
problems. I think a lot of the things we had in mind for ADSP and its
antecedents came at too high a price in the end, which is why it was "watered
down".
This working group spent a huge amount of blood, sweat and tears working on
attempts to create a viable policy layer, and after all that, ADSP is what we
managed to get consensus to do. Lots of other alternatives have been proposed,
and none of them have stuck either, and their various authors (including me)
haven't persisted.
If ADSP is too weak or dangerous a protocol, and there are no current viable
alternatives, then failing to beat the streets to get the industry to deploy it
is an act of responsibility, not one of omission or laziness.
We tried policy, and couldn't make it work. It's time to spend all this energy
looking at something else.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html