On 1/6/21 6:59 AM, Dotzero wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:41 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com
<mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:
On 1/5/21 10:02 PM, Dotzero wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:19 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com
<mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:
No it was an unalloyed good that you brought that up. We can
use a much
more data-driven approach rather than opinion and conjecture.
It would
be good for it to be required reading for everybody on this
working
group, and not snarled at as a heresy. DKIM itself was a leap
of faith.
16 years later it is gratifying that we have data.
Mike
DKIM was NOT a leap of faith. At the time there was plenty of
data from DK (Domain Keys) and IIM to inform those involved.
Please stop making assertions of "fact" which are simply not true.
Um, dude, I was one of the authors of IIM. You're literally
claiming to know more than me about what was in my head.
Mike
So all the data was in your head? I wasn't using IIM but was
publishing DK and getting feedback from Yahoo! and a few other
receivers through private channels. There were other senders in a
similar situation as myself. And yes, people were discussing things
privately (Web of Trust groups). Your claim that there was no data
available at the time is quite simply false.
You are literally telling me what I knew at the time. It was a lot of
the reason that we got push back to form the DKIM working group. It
wasn't until I read that paper that I got some concrete feel for how it
affected things, and that was 16 years later. The biggest change for the
better was senders closing open relays. It's still not clear that DKIM
had any affect on that.
Mike
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
