In <20041001005725(_dot_)2630(_dot_)qmail(_at_)xuxa(_dot_)iecc(_dot_)com> John
Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> writes:
We have at least five proposals on the table,
and any detailed arguments about requirements will in fact be
arguments among various proposals.
Pardon my ignorance but what proposals are likely to be considered by
MASS? Which ones have been moved to CLEAR?
I think it makes a lot of sense to consider things like DomainKeys and
a simplified S/MIME to be in a separate category than ABBS/SES/BATV.
It seems to me it would be much more productive to examine the
proposals we have, particularly the ones that have been implemented
(DK and TEOS at least, probably others), and see if we can reach
agreement that at least one of them does something worth
standardizing. No doubt there will be minor tweaks here and there, I
hope not so extensive as to invalidate the experience of existing
implementations, but I'd be a whole lot more comfortable moving ahead
with something where there is at least some evidence that it works.
I *very* much agree with this. One of the things that concerns me
about the proposed charter is it appears to be aimed at creating a
standard rather than selecting a proposal based on merits.
-wayne