-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 1:56 PM
To: jdfalk-lists(_at_)cybernothing(_dot_)org;
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ADSP stats
In my mind the whole adsp degenerated into a use case only for well
recognized narrowband senders such as banks. Had nothing to do with
reputation sellers, and judging by a recent exit from the market a
reputation is only as good as it is maintained.
That's my recollection as well. I never saw any concerted or even accidental
attempt to block, prevent, quash, overthrow or otherwise prevent policy work
from being done. I believe the original policy work was a victim of the fact
that it's very hard to get such things right in this operational environment,
and there was insufficient operational evidence to support some of the original
proposals. Ultimately, we simply couldn't reach consensus on the rich
solutions people wanted. That's very different from the conspiracy theories
that have been alleged by a few ever since.
I also can't see the current language as endorsing any particular layer on top
of DKIM. Indeed, we've published an RFC that presents a (limited) policy
solution, but have deliberately avoided doing any work on reputation at all.
That seems to counter to what's being alleged here.
Finally, I'm a little tired of the notion that if a particular pet solution
isn't the one that reached rough consensus, then the only possibility is that
there's malice afoot. The occasional incivility didn't help, but that's not
the same thing as impropriety. There are other possibilities one might
consider as the reason something didn't make it into the RFCs.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html