My reading of the review is that, so far, the reviewer is actually being
reasonable.
They are calling for very careful statement of scope and utility. And, yeah, a
bunch of frankly pro forma caveats. But the substance seems to really be about
clarity and precision, rather than perfection, uselessness, or the like.
d/
J D Falk wrote:
[redacted] advised:
In spite of my qualms, I recognize that spam is a huge
problem and that email authentication is a somewhat effective
tool against it. Some of the problems described above are
very hard to solve but many can be addressed easily.
If there is rough consensus within the email community that
standardization of this header is beneficial, it should go
forward.
*whew*
Reading this, I was getting worried that the entire thing would be
blocked forever (or until email authentication is 100% perfected for all
use cases, which may take even longer than that.)
Sounds like there'll need to be a whole bunch of statements about how
this header is only as secure as your existing email infrastructure, and
if your network is totally pwned then this header will probably be pwned
too.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html