Brett, my main point is that, if you, of all people, don't understand
the problem, then we seriously are having a basic understanding of the
long time conflict and its resolutions.
You (speaking in general) either support a policy concept or you
don't. Thats been the dilemma all these years.
But you do understand policy, because you pointed out the idea that
you don't need DKIM per se to use DMARC, i.e. you have a restrictive
policy to handle legacy abused operations (where mail is not signed or
there is no mail operation for a domain). These are not new ideas.
They are 10 years old DKIM POLICY concepts.
However, I find it hard to understand how the advocates of DMARC are
not pushing for 3rd party solutions. Thats the odd thing about it.
My apology to you if you felt offended by my comments. It wasn't
intended. If the new DMARC advocates and DKIM Policy Marketing was as
strong during SSP/ADSP, the original proof of concept with DKIM, we
probably would of solved this problem long ago and MLM/MLS systems,
including our own MLS product, would be better off without the radical
rewriting hacks suggestions.
--
HLS
On 10/28/2014 4:32 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
On 10/28/2014 4:16 PM, Brett McDowell wrote:
Brett McDowell wrote:
I suspect there was a purpose for that argument that might still be
relevant to our work even though the argument doesn’t seem to be
supported,
but I’m not seeing it yet.
Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote:
Thats unfortunate, because based on your marketing efforts (spams from
agari regarding presentations you are making), you should be on top of
these very important total mail integration concepts.
Hector, don't confuse your inability to put forward a coherent argument
with my inability to understand these concepts.
Thats it? Is that all you have, is to attack my integrity? I won't
bother to issue an complaint to the WG chairs. I wasn't attacking
you. You questioned the concept and reasons for the DKIM Policy
framework discussions when in fact, DMARC is all about a policy layer
for DKIM/SPF. I felt its unfortunate you are not seeing the problem.
There is a 184 references towards the idea. There is a long time
history and tons of R&D work. There is a problem regarding 3rd party
signers. What else is there to understand?
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
