Bron,
On 4/7/2025 10:53 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I buy this argument. You're quite correct, DKIM doesn't have any
actual problems. It's perfect. It does exactly what it's specified to do.
DKIM is also insufficient for the purpose for which it's trying to be
used. And there's an argument that "the purpose of a system is what
it does".
My point is that it is fine for what it is trying to do. It does
exactly that. That's sufficiency, not insufficiency.
Since you feel otherwise, perhaps you can explain in technical terms?
This seems not a small point in understanding the new work, in relation
to the old.
What it is not so fine for is evaluating DKIM in terms of things it was
not intended to do. Some of which are things the Motivation draft
claims it does, but doesn't.
The purpose for which DKIM is trying to be used includes the kind of
reputation and "quality of email coming from X domain" tracking that
pretty much every medium-to-large email operator is doing - and it
insufficient for that purpose.
Again, please explain in technical detail. Just trading conclusions
isn't helpful to group discussion and understanding.
On that basis...
....
I'm perfectly happy to call it something completely different - I'm to
a large interest more interested in the tech than the branding...
ahh, name confusion doesn´t matter much. right.
but let's be clear on my reasoning for using the name DKIM is "it is
intended to plug into the same place in the stack as DKIM does; and
reuse the key infrastructure of DKIM - meaning it will be more
understandable to MOST people if it's called DKIM2 than if it's called
e.g. SEEDS (Signed Explicit Email Destination and Source) - and that
branding will assist with getting people to convert.
Your assertion about understandabability collides with likelihoods of
cognitive confusion. Especially since -- as the Motivation document
demonstrates and a lot of industry discussion demonstrates -- people
already tend to misunderstand what DKIM does.
As they misunderstand DMARC, with one vendor claiming it eliminates CEO
spoofing.
By the way, with your logic, UDP and TCP should have similar names,
since they plug into the same place in the stack.
Or perhaps 'place in the stack' is of import to a very, very narrow
demographic, whereas the much larger demographic is a lot more likely to
more attention to basic email functionality than to abstract network
architecture placement.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
