On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:54:47 -0400 Barry Leiba > <barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Some have opined that it's even too early to consider taking the base >> DKIM protocol to Draft Standard; let's make sure we have consensus on >> that point, one way or the other. >> > I'm going to re-iterate my point for this perspective. We do not > yet have > a broad experience base with deployment of DKIM by large, > heterogeneous > organizations. This is a hard problem for them because they first > have to > get their outbound mail architecture under control.
It's actually a very easy problem, or at least an incremental one, as there's no need whatsoever to get all their mail architecture under control at once. Attaching a DKIM token to an outbound mail benefits that mail, even if other mail from the same sender doesn't have a token. The potential benefit to each individual mail increases as more mail has the same token, but it starts as soon as some mail has it. So DKIM can be deployed incrementally, one server, one location or one application at a time, and will add benefit to senders of wanted email immediately. > My view is that these types of deployments are the ones that will > teach us > the most about the protocol and we are at least a year and maybe two > or > three from getting significant experience/feedback to support > progressing > DKIM along the standards track. Perhaps. I don't think that that particular decision is going to affect real world deployment at all, though, so it's not something I see as desperately important either way. I do think that any plan that's based on actually changing the protocol in two or three years time in any way that's not localized to a black box MTA implementation, is likely to be unfruitful. A widely deployed base of a "good enough" implementation is going to be hard to change, for the social reasons I suspect most people here are familiar with. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
