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 provid
(Reducing distribution to just ietf-dkim)
On 2006-01-03 13:46, Jim Fenton wrote:
For this reason, I don't think the operation of reputation systems
themselves should be defined by IETF; different users will have
different needs.
Trying to define what is intrinsically a social policy using pur
Nick Nicholas wrote:
>Jim makes some excellent points and raises several interesting avenues
>of discussion which I would love to pursue. However, is the DKIM
>mailing list the proper forum for doing so? It was my understanding
>that the main item on the table at this time is finalizing the thre
On 01/04/2006 14:20, Douglas Otis wrote:
I really hate it that we are debating SPF on the DKIM list, but it seems
unavoidable...
> SPF and SSP will have similar problems. With SPF, you have pointed
> out the RFC1123 5.3.6(a) issue that may cause those concerned with
> the resulting disappearanc
On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:13 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
there will be a time when the group should be focusing on the
policy stuff, but its just not yet. For now we ought be focusing
on the threats draft.
s/now/tomorrow/ after the WG is chartered... ;-) I think I've no
This is not a thread about ssp. Its about staying on topic.
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Seriously, there will be a time when the group should be focusing on
the policy stuff, but its just not yet. For now we ought be focusing
on the threats draft
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> there will be a time when the group should be focusing on
> the policy stuff, but its just not yet. For now we ought be
> focusing on the threats draft.
s/now/tomorrow/ after the WG is chartered... ;-) I think I've
now got Doug's terminology of "closed" vs. "open", it 's
On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Seriously, there will be a time when the group should be focusing
on the policy stuff, but its just not yet. For now we ought be
focusing on the threats draft.
There are a fair number of claims being made in the threat draft
regarding SS
[Note: ietf@ietf.org removed from distribution because I am not a
subscriber to that list and have no intention of subscribing because I
am already subscribed to way too many mailing lists. If a subscriber to
ietf@ietf.org feels it is appropriate, please feel free to forward this
message to that l
Hi Doug,
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 3, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 2, 2006, at 11:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
dangerous open-ended policies as seen with SPF. (Very bad.)
Define "open-ended":
Argh! Please don't!
Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> Why not read and comment on the threats draft instead? You'll feel
>> much better, really.
>
>
> I _did_ respond to the threat draft, but neither reading the threat
> draft, nor the lack of response by _anyone_ else
On Jan 3, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 2, 2006, at 11:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
dangerous open-ended policies as seen with SPF. (Very bad.)
Define "open-ended":
Argh! Please don't!
This was related to comments suggesti
John Leslie wrote:
>Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Dec 24, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Reputation remains the only solution able to abate the bulk of abuse.
>>>
>>>
>>... I think most of us pretty much agree about the critical role of
>>r
Athbhlian faoi mhaise. (Bit late but whatever...:-)
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 2, 2006, at 11:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
dangerous open-ended policies as seen with SPF. (Very bad.)
Define "open-ended":
Argh! Please don't!
Why not read and comment on the t
On Jan 2, 2006, at 11:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
dangerous open-ended policies as seen with SPF. (Very bad.)
Define "open-ended":
A set needs a definition for grouping. In email, the obvious
distinction for this grouping would be acceptance versus rejection,
ba
Douglas Otis wrote:
> dangerous open-ended policies as seen with SPF. (Very bad.)
Define "open-ended": I've no idea what you're talking about,
or rather if it's NEUTRAL you're wrong. And for your favourite
"pure DKIM" I'd like to know what it's good for:
As an example, what exactly could say I
>I would be very interested in participating in a new working group or
>mailing list that concentrates on reputation services that can build
>on the excellent work done so far in the DKIM group.
Oh, good. The IAR subgroup in the ASRG has been languishing for ages
waiting for people to pick up on
I would be very interested in participating in a new working group or mailing list that concentrates on reputation services that can build on the excellent work done so far in the DKIM group. I am also involved in another standards effort amongst the posts of the world called the Electronic Postma
Selamat tahun baru.
Bonne année to you too.
I agree with Dave sometimes, and disagree sometimes. For this note,
I agree with everything he says. I have a few things to add (though
as I went through it trying to add more, I realized how unnecessary
that was).
Unless I have missed something qu
19 matches
Mail list logo
