On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
What concern do you have regarding the unfair treatment and
disruptions the SSP mechanism permits.
Neat trick. I nearly fell for it:-)
I have no concerns about ssp that I'd state more than 100 times.
You have no concerns? Can you provide a generalization of the
concern that you have?
When someone attempts to discuss the merits of these concerns, why
introduce malarkey about everyone already knowing.
"malarkey?" Sheesh!
Perhaps "malarkey" was not being culturally sensitive. I was not
attempting to be condescending; just the opposite. My apologies. : )
I doubt a review of postings to this list would single me out that
way. And if you believe that people paying attention to this list
are enlightened by repetition then I suspect you're mistaken. My
guess is that they'll stop reading your posts, never mind spend
time considering what you're trying to say.
A lack of activity on the list suggests many things. Generalizations
have the effect of not delving into merits. Before proceeding head
long, it would be good to have these issues clearly illuminated.
There seems to be a general assumption that authorization offers a
means of protection. There also seems to be a general assumption
that employing the policy of the sender is appropriate. There also
seems to be a general assumption that "open-ended" authorizations are
"okay". There also seems to be a general assumption the email-domain
owner can be held accountable. Perhaps it would be good to highlight
the assumptions used to arrive at these conclusions.
There is an alternative means to ensure better protection against
fraud that is controlled by the recipient. There is also a means to
establish expectations for the presence of signatures without
authorizations. The alternatives avoid the disruptions an
authorization scheme may impose.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org