[ietf-dkim] Review of draft-fenton-dkim-threats-01
MarkD+dkim at yahoo-inc.com
Sun Oct 30 06:44:48 PST 2005
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:05:40AM -0700, Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote:
> > It certainly doesn't make your analysis a pre-requisite of
> > anything, does it?
> Of course not. But equally, it doesn't mean that it's a bad idea
> to do it.
No. Sigh. It's actually a good idea to do it. And your level of detail
certainly makes the issues coherent, tangible and addressable. My quibble
is over the timing and the newness of them. Not that such quibbles ever
count for anything.
> Now, of course, you may have a different opinion about the
> importance of these issues, but just asserting that you (even for
> large values of you) disagree isn't much of an argument.
And isn't that a big part of the problem? These issues keep recurring, in
large part because we (all of we) can only have opinions on some of them.
What this sort of technology is doing, is putting in levers that some
proponents think can be used to indirectly influence behavior. To put it
crudely, if we can create a different mail experience, then senders and
receivers will act differently.
The impact reaches far beyond traditional technical issues - no surprise
then that there are so many opinions on this stuff.
The big surprise will be finding a way to resolve the different
opinions. Do you think that's even possible?
More information about the ietf-dkim