[ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Wed Aug 2 09:30:00 PDT 2006
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:28:20 -0500 wayne <wayne at schlitt.net> wrote:
>In <44D03872.5090601 at dcrocker.net> Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> writes:
>> John L wrote:
>>> SSP exists so that receivers can make better decisions about
>>> handling their incoming mail.
>>> Information not useful to receivers doesn't belong in SSP.
>I agree, but it is also important to remember that anything that has
>no value to the sender will likely not be put into the SSP either.
>> For this initial round of SSP, the wording of the Corollary probably
needs to be:
>> Information that is not widely viewed by receivers as essential
>> belong in SSP.
>I think this is very short sighted. It is rare that a protocol gets
>more than one or two revisions. I don't think it is certain that DKIM
>will actually even surpasses DK usage and receives wide adoption, but
>I think it is very unlikely that we will get a chance to update DKIM
>and have that update receive wide adoption.
>There certainly should be a cost/benefit analysis done. If a feature
>is costly to add and has little obvious benefit to both senders and
>receivers, then, yeah, drop it. However, if a feature is cheap or
>trivial to add, then just because there aren't people willing to use
>it *immediately* is no reason to rule it out. And, yes, the overall
>complexity of the SSP system needs to be added into the cost, I'm not
>saying that all features that, in isolation, are "cheap" should be
>added, just that we shouldn't design SSP for only today and not for
>5-10 years down the road.
More information about the ietf-dkim