> On Mar 26, 2023, at 1:11 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > My contention is that documenting what has failed in the problem statement > saves time eventually in the solution space as you can reference it when > somebody brings it up as to why it doesn't work. It would be just a cut and > paste for (3) along with other discussion of what was also considered and > rejected. For (4) it gives a basis of what not to suggest. > Michael, first, I want to express my thanks and support your stance.
Thank you for expressing the thoughts of the silent majority. I have been IETF-style silenced here because of my strong DKIM Policy model position. It has never changed. And history only continues to prove my concerns correct. The DKIM and Reputation modeling has been long dreamed, but to this day - we have nada. The closest thing we have us VBR, It make an Author Domain (ADID) and SDID (Signer Domain) association. So does ATPS. Since MARID, it has been about associations of two or more identities. With SPF, an LMAP concept, it was an Return-Path Domain::IP association. With ADSP is was an Author Domain (ADID) and Signer Domain (SDID) association but we could only work out the 1st party association with ADID equal SDID. This is DMARC. With ATPS, it proposed an 1st party ADID and 3rd party SDID association. We can add this to DMARC. But someone said it does not scale and we stopped!!!! They said Reputation is better!! No Dependency on ADID! We have nothing since 2005!!! — Has
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
