[ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary
hsantos at santronics.com
Mon Jan 23 23:49:19 PST 2006
----- 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.
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
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
More information about the ietf-dkim