ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] ADSP stats

2011-04-20 00:45:28
-----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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>