[ietf-dkim] ADSP stats

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

In my mind the whole adsp degenerated into a use case only for well recognized narrowband senders such as banks. Had nothing to do with reputation sellers, and judging by a recent exit from the market a reputation is only as good as it is maintained
________________________________________
From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk [jdfalk-lists at cybernothing.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:08 PM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ADSP stats

On Apr 18, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> If ADSP is too weak or dangerous a protocol, and there are no current viable alternatives, then failing to beat the streets to get the industry to deploy it is an act of responsibility, not one of omission or laziness.
>
> My feeling is that it conflicts with too many (would-be) industry third parties' self interest in
> selling reputation/policy, and hence why the FUD bullhorn was on full blast through the entire
> exercise, and remains on to this day.

Could you provide some evidence of reputation/policy vendors spreading FUD about ADSP?  Press releases, blog posts, even links to mailing list archives.

It's possible that it happened, but if so I'd really like to know who was doing it.

--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html