[ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary

[Hector Santos]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fenton" <fenton at cisco.com>

>> I think the way we all expect to use DKIM is that a message
>> comes in, we check the signature, then we look up the signing
>> domain in some sort of reputation system, be it a local
>> whitelist or something fancier, then if the reputation is
>> good we accept the mail, if it's bad we reject it, and if
>> there's no reputation, we fall back and do what we would
>> have done otherwise.

> Agreed.

Jim,

You are kidding? Right?  Do you really agreed with this?  This is
contrary of your SSP proposal. The above is not the chartered proposal.
I hope we don't get lost into some undefined reputation concept.

IMO, DKIM will not widely adopted with a "Batteries Required" concept.
It will be nice to keep the protocol sweet and pure.

I suggest we try to keep away introducing a reputation system into the
algorithm.   It can always be added separately and independently. But as
a protocol, I don't think it will be widely accepted for a few simple
reasons - What Reputation System?  Whose Reputation System? What is the
"Fancy System?" Will it become a 3rd party central repository?  Will
there be a buy-in fee? Republican vs. Democrats?, etc.  It is going to
very hard to justify further support when we now have to begin promoting
3rd party A/R into our product lines.

If that is what you want to do, go for it, but its not the proposal and
charter - it is not DKIM nor your SSP proposal.

I would like to ask the chairs to set the record straight. If a
reputation system is part of the proposal, charter, I would like to know
this ASAP.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com