[ietf-dkim] SSP requirements
deepvoice at gmail.com
Mon Aug 7 06:50:13 PDT 2006
I apologize. I meant to say... stop trying to steer the ship from the
What I said could have connotations that I did not intend at all. I apologize.
On 8/7/06, Damon <deepvoice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/06, Hector Santos <hsantos at santronics.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John L" <johnl at iecc.com>
> > To: "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com>
> > > > That's a pretty reasonable question, frankly. The set of domains that
> > > > would actually benefit from SSP from the consensus I've seen seems like
> > > > it's a pretty tiny fraction of the internet at large and almost
> > > > certainly could be handled by third party dnsbl-like or accreditation
> > > > schemes as well.
> > >
> > > Agreed. That's what I've been thinking all along.
> > In other words, your 3rd party dnsbl-like DAC business venture with some
> > highly exploitable VBR protocol, with $10,000, $5000 entry feeds, with
> > absolutely no plans for SSP, is the right solution for everyone and will
> > resolved all the security issued related to DKIM. This wasn't about the
> > your so called "SSP FOG" rethorical chaos but rather a conflict of interest.
> > Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.
> > Wonderful.
> How many +1's am I allowed to put on this?
> Fog?! Give me a break. I have caught up with what is going on in a
> matter of days and I am NOT confused or in a fog. I have disagreements
> and suggestions, but by no means do I think we are tripping around in
> the dark here.
> To say there have been no suggestions that you have heard from
> something less strict than "I sign all" means you have not read a word
> I and others have said and especially over the last few days.
> In the movies when the Whig's pretend not to hear the cannon fire,
> it's funny- I'm not laughing.
> Stop trying to steer the ship from the purser's vault.
> Damon Sauer
More information about the ietf-dkim