spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sendmail white paper

2004-11-24 11:25:09
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:03:08 -0800, James Couzens <jcouzens(_at_)6o4(_dot_)ca> 
wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 08:52 -0800, Rand Wacker wrote:

There is currently very little deployment of IIM or SES, and little
indication that will grow soon.  There are already a number of large
sites signing/checking DK, so there is real sender benefit to implement.
  I still have hopes that IIM and DK will centralize on a standard spec,
so I didn't want to confuse the issue with two (comparably expensive)
crypto approaches yet without major benefits to doing so.

Oh I see, so this is a POPULARITY CONTEST.  Well, glad to see it will be
the MOST POPULAR cryptography scheme that gets all the attention (yes
just as stupid as saying "yeah it was in the last place I looked").
Glad to see you are right on top of everything over there at Sendmail
Rand.


James,

I'm sure Rand can defend himself if he chooses. I think you are being
more than a little unfair. Some of us live in the real world and have
to worry more about what is deployed than what might possibly be
deployed. I just stepped out of a meeting where these issues were
discussed and DK got significantly more time than IIM. Why? Because
there are significant players already rolling it out. If I don't
survive today then tomorrow is much less of an issue.

Why was Rijndael selected over Twofish for AES? A big part of it was
that Rijndael was faster even though Twofish appears to be stronger.
In the real world we have to make choices based on factors that may
not be considered in a perfect world.

I have a feeling that if Rand had used IIM as his example then you
would have attacked him for not including DK. One of the wonderful
things about our world is that anyone can write a White Paper. If you
don't like what Rand wrote then write your own. Then go see if people
are willing to take the time to read what you wrote.

Mike


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