On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:10:40AM -0700, David MacQuigg wrote:
Mark,
Let's wrap this up. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on the
purpose of authentication.
Your ID method as you have described it does not and can not
authenticate the various permissions that various parties have granted
the client MTA, permissions which are important to me.
(As a side note, it is technically possible for it to do so, given some
serious modifications that would change it drastically.)
Instead, it authenticates something else entirely, with a purpose almost
completely unrelated to my own interests and those of every other
responder I have seen on this list.
I need to summarize your objection in a short
statement, and present both sides fairly.
Then I would suggest studying the previous responses from myself and
others on the topic of this ID proposal of yours.
Objection: Why should I care what the ID owner (who is trying to claim
responsibility of some sort) wants or expects with respect to
authentication tests?
An answer to this question that actually answers the question might
serve as a convenient jumping-off point for a new thread, once you find
a forum in which such a discussion would be fully on-topic.
It occurs to me that it would be useful if there were
a place where these discussions would be on-topic.
I would ask if you would please set up a mailing list
for discussion of these topics, and then make an
announcement here as to its location.
I'm not going to set up a mailing list with such a narrow scope.
If you are not interested in setting up a new mailing list in which
your discussions on a new ID parameter would be on-topic, then I wish
you luck in your search for an existing mailing list in which such
discussions would be on-topic.
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com