In
<20041001044650(_dot_)88128(_dot_)qmail(_at_)web40421(_dot_)mail(_dot_)yahoo(_dot_)com>
<domainkeys-feedbackbase01(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com> writes:
--- wayne <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> wrote:
That doesn't really answer my question though. In particular, I'm
concerned about this working group trying to cover different
compatible and orthogonal proposals the way MARID tried to do.
Wayne. Sorry for being dense, but can you be more specific about your
concerns?
One of the problems with MARID was that there were several identities
that could be covered. Each had different advantages and
disadvantages, different needs and different reasons for being
protected. In many ways, they were compatible and orthogonal and
proposals to cover them all could have moved forward. Instead only
one proposal was allowed to move forward and this created a lot of
conflict.
I understand the orthogonality issues of MARID - I think - and no
doubt some of the issues will be revisited here.
Yes, I see problems if, for example, SES is allowed to move forward,
but DomainKeys is held back until after SES has been standardized.
I very strongly believe that spam, like other forms of theft, will
never go away. And, like crime fighting, there needs to be many
different techniques applied to stop it. Imagine if we put off
working on putting locks on doors and building prisons until the
police force was worked on.
-wayne