Allow me to give a little summary, if I may. I see at least the following arguments about ADSP in the conversation of the last couple of weeks: - ADSP is of no use at all. - ADSP will entirely stop spoofing, if it's widely adopted. - ADSP will partially stop spoofing / make it harder to spoof. - ADSP is a tool that can be used in other anti-spoofing mechanisms. - "All" and "Discardable" are effectively the same, because that's how the spec is written. - "All" and "Discardable" are effectively the same, because of how recipient domains are implementing them. - "All" and "Discardable" are entirely different; why can't you see that? - We need a new "Except-mlist" option to make sure we have something really really different. - There's essentially no implementation of ADSP anyway. - Some domains that are major targets of spoofing have not implemented / will not implement ADSP. - Some domains that handle a lot of mail from major targets of spoofing will not implement ADSP. - ...etc...
As a participant, I have opinions of my own on some of these. But I don't think it matters. We've put a protocol out there that we think, at least through rough consensus, is useful for something. We have two operational guides that we've created, which are meant to help implementors figure out what to do. And now we have to wait, and see what gets deployed, how it's used, and how well it works. It's far too early to make any judgment about ADSP based on current deployment. Now we're talking about the "Thomas interpretation" and the "Levine interpretation", and I posit that it doesn't matter, at this point, whether they have different interpretations (actually, I like John's most recent post on that), and we won't know who's "right" until we have time to get more data. And, as JD implies, we can argue about this until the world explodes, and it won't accomplish anything for the working group. The best it will do, as I can see from the discussion, is boost sales of ramipril [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihypertensive_drugs#ACE_inhibitors ]. If people really want to continue arguing about this, I don't really want to stop you, though I'll ask you to stick to one subject thread, and to avoid pugilism. Or perhaps you can get Dave to start up a new mailing list called "adsp-fi...@dkim.org", or some such. But what's bothering me about the discussion, as chair, is that it's distracting everyone from the issue at hand, which is what to do about rechartering the working group. Let's please get back to that, and hold off on tangential discussion until we've settled on a new charter. Separate message coming about that. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
