[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to
hsantos at santronics.com
Thu Jan 24 18:14:26 PST 2008
Mark Delany wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Summary of proposal:
>>>> All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message
>>>> needs to be removed.
>> I would take this further: remove all text that says when to apply
>> SSP. Instead, provide text that states the contribution that SSP
>> can make under different conditions: mail with valid first-party
>> signature, mail with valid third-party signature, and mail without
>> valid signature.
> If for no other reason than the obvious fact that SSP is not making
> progress as it stands. We need some sort of reset if we hope to proceed.
Its unfortunate that it has nothing to do with technical reasons but the
powers that are pushing reputations instead. The fact is, Dave's never
cared for SSP and its spelled out in his deployment guide, and the other
guy pushing his reputation service has no room for SSP because SSP
threatens that service business.
It is would be one thing to kill SSP for its technical merits, but no
one has SHOWN it is flawed system. NO one.
Purely based on self interest, and unfortunately we have a few cogs who
are masters of getting things KILLED if they want it to DIE.
It is a very SAD that not enough the technical developers are here to
mandate the direction.
It is really a sad. Too bad. Such a GOOD system is going thrown away
because of the self-interest reputations pushers.
Hector Santos, CTO
More information about the ietf-dkim