[ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?

[Steve Atkins]

On Aug 7, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

>
>
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>> From my perspective, the number needn't be small at all.  Small
>>> organizations with their own mail processing infrastructure can with
> ...
>> Even when it decreases overall deliverability? That is to say, causes
>> legitimate email to be treated as forgeries and, likely, discarded.
>>
>> I can see cases where that's going to be an appropriate tradeoff,  
>> but I
>> don't think they're as widespread as some people think.
>
>
> We need to find a way to discuss the design choices so that we are  
> not faced
> with a bevy of personal prognostications about the likelihood of  
> particular
> outcomes.  Most, if not all, of us will be wrong.
>
> Rather:
>
> Do we see a clear and compelling benefit for a design choice being  
> proposed?
>
> Is it substantially better than some other choice being proposed?
>
> Do we see an absence of significant detriments? (Complexity, scaling,
> performance, reliability, etc.)
>
> Do we see a clear and substantial base of users/organizations for  
> the choice NOW?
>
> Only then might we consider adding a guess about the size of the  
> population from
> which this sample of adopting users/organization is taken.
>
> Debating whether my sample is bigger than yours is certain to be  
> unproductive.

Definitely.

A lot of the controversy about SSP is based on
false positives - mail that was signed when sent but is not
signed when received.

I know that various people have been looking at the cases where
that can happen, but I don't recall seeing any quantitative
results presented. If they have been, could someone point me
at them?

Cheers,
   Steve