[ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal
gmail.sant9442 at winserver.com
Sat Oct 24 16:11:26 PDT 2009
Barry Leiba wrote:
> I think "dormant" will work, if this is the route we decide to take.
> But I think we won't be completely dormant, anyway, if we're gathering
> data and reviewing the informational documents, and perhaps updating
I think it would be nice if we had (if already done, reestablish) a
foundation for what exactly we are looking for during this "dormant"
- Personal Community/Network (AKA Local Sites) Statistics?
- Growth of Incoming Signed Messages
- Percentage of Spam
- Percentage of 1st, 3rd party
- Percentage of failed hashing from EyeBalled Good guys.
- Growth of ADSP domains
- Growth of Open Standard Reputations Systems
- Growth of Open API Commercial Reputations Systems
- Exclusivity Analysis (What If)
- What if your other current filters (i.e. SPF)
was not around?
- What if Remailers honored ADSP?
- FOG (Flash Of Genius) protocol fitting solutions
etc, some form of foundation for producing a formal report after 1+
years or at some group agreed date.
One other data point, in a form of a open question:
- If ADSP is not recommended for 3rd party signers, are
3rd party signers also exempt from performing
This would probably fall under the percentage of spam data point
Maybe we don't know what these questions are?
More information about the ietf-dkim