Doug,
Did you read the mail where I said that Eliot won't track
things that aren't obviously new issues? Please do try to
make his and our lives somewhat easier by complying with that
request - it is not reasonable to expect him to parse
a thread to extract an issue description from the 7th mess
- Original Message -
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed
> to different audiences:
>
> 1) Authors of software
> 2) Operators of software.
>
> It seems to me that a lot of p
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >> OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed to
> >> different
> >> audiences:
> >>
> >> 1) Authors of software
> >> 2) Operators of software.
> >
> > I don't re
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker,
Phillip
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:51 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements
OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed to different
audiences:
1) Authors of software
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Fair enough. But in this case, there has perhaps been some
> confusion as a result of not seeing this difference, so
> raising it on the list seems reasonable/useful.
Dealing with confusion is almost always a good thing. However I do not see how
a simple listing of gen
Dave Crocker wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed to different
audiences:
1) Authors of software
2) Operators of software.
I don't recall seeing this mentioned before!
Are "requirements" documents now expect
Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed to different
>> audiences:
>>
>> 1) Authors of software
>> 2) Operators of software.
>
> I don't recall seeing this mentioned before!
Are "requirements" documents now expected
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed to different
audiences:
1) Authors of software
2) Operators of software.
I don't recall seeing this mentioned before!
Thank you,
Stephen.
___
NOTE WELL: This
OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed to different
audiences:
1) Authors of software
2) Operators of software.
It seems to me that a lot of points here are only discussing the second and
thus we end up with more heat than light as there is considerably greater
variation in
Yet another post that seems (hard to tell) to contain no
new technical points that may help us in working on SSP.
Please desist,
Stephen.
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 04:55 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
I w
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 04:55 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
>
> > I will say that that I think that John's DAC venture is exactly what
> > we had hoped would be an outcome of this process. May there be many
> > more DAC co
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
> I will say that that I think that John's DAC venture is exactly what
> we had hoped would be an outcome of this process. May there be many
> more DAC competitors emerging as DKIM is deployed.
Mark,
But will there be a s
The DKIM authentication convention could be noted at the EHLO by
having the host-name for the client utilize a "_dkim." prefix. This
prefix signals the mode of authentication made possible by the DKIM
convention claiming this prefix. This could fall into the same realm
as the key, and From polic
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> > An another policy that might be considered would be one for
> the DKIM
> > client
>
>
> I'm sorry, I have no idea what a dkim client is. Can you in as few of
> words as
> possible tell me what that is?
In
I apologize. I meant to say... stop trying to steer the ship from the
sea locker.
What I said could have connotations that I did not intend at all. I apologize.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
On 8/7/06, Damon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/5/06, Hector Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Origina
On 8/5/06, Hector Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > That's a pretty reasonable question, frankly. The set of domains that
> > would actually benefit from SSP from the consensus I've see
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> which is ridiculously premature.
which begs the questions;...
What is wrong with SSP-01?Why start at ground zero with the premise "we
don't understand SSP" which only serves to
s Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements
>
> Hector,
>
&
Hector,
I missed this one earlier.
Hector Santos wrote:
My apology to the WG chairs, but this is utterly ridiculous position coming
from a person who is suppose to write the SSP design requirements. It reeks
badly with obvious signs of conflict of interest by specific individuals to
kill SSP.
Hector,
Hector Santos wrote:
[...]
Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.
Wonderful.
That mail is entirely out of order.
There are IETF rules for handling such mis-behaviour. Let's not go
down that road,
Regards,
Stephen (definitely wearing WG-chair hat).
_
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If there is a problem with someone's statements, attack the
> merits, not the speaker.
According to John, no one understands SSP, we are in a SSP FOG, says there
is no logic to it, indicates the IESG will not consider SSP,
On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly
Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.
Hector. Most of us on this list are in the email business - including
you - as I understand it.
Mark Delany wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly
>
>> Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.
>
> Hector. Most of us on this list are in the email business - including
> you - as I understand it. If we start slinging arrows at anyone who
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 07:05:16PM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly
> Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.
Hector. Most of us on this list are in the email business - including
you - as I understand it. If we start slinging arrows at anyone who
has a business connection, most
Douglas Otis wrote:
An another policy that might be considered would be one for the DKIM
client
I'm sorry, I have no idea what a dkim client is. Can you in as few of
words as
possible tell me what that is?
Mike, rather burned out on these threads
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, Hector Santos wrote:
Agreed. That's what I've been thinking all along.
In other words, your 3rd party dnsbl-like DAC business venture with some
highly exploitable VBR protocol, with $10,000, $5000 entry feeds, with
absolutely no plans for SSP, is the right solution for ev
On Aug 5, 2006, at 1:42 PM, John L wrote:
That's a pretty reasonable question, frankly. The set of domains
that would actually benefit from SSP from the consensus I've seen
seems like it's a pretty tiny fraction of the internet at large
and almost certainly could be handled by third party
- Original Message -
From: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > That's a pretty reasonable question, frankly. The set of domains that
> > would actually benefit from SSP from the consensus I've seen seems like
> > it's a pretty tiny fraction of the in
That's a pretty reasonable question, frankly. The set of domains that
would actually benefit from SSP from the consensus I've seen seems like
it's a pretty tiny fraction of the internet at large and almost
certainly could be handled by third party dnsbl-like or accreditation
schemes as well.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John Levine wrote:
>
> >That's a reasonable concern.
> >
> >The fog around SSP is so opaque that I'm really wondering if it
> >wouldn't make more sense to punt and wait for people to d
John Levine wrote:
I can't gather requirements if I can't make any sense of what you're saying.
That's a reasonable concern.
The fog around SSP is so opaque that I'm really wondering if it
wouldn't make more sense to punt and wait for people to do enough
experiments to understand what tu
(CCI-Atlanta)
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements
> How does the post office do it? It receives mail from other countries
> and determines what kind of stamps official franking etc to either
> deliver or return to sender unopened.
International postal mail
How does the post office do it? It receives mail from other countries
and determines what kind of stamps official franking etc to either
deliver or return to sender unopened.
International postal mail is one of the worst possible analogies for
Internet mail. It's a closed system consisting of
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 03:40:58AM -, John Levine allegedly wrote:
> >I can't gather requirements if I can't make any sense of what you're saying.
>
> That's a reasonable concern.
>
> The fog around SSP is so opaque that I'm really wondering if it
> wouldn't make more sense to punt and wait f
, August 04, 2006 11:41 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements
>I can't gather requirements if I can't make any sense of what you're
saying.
That's a reasonable concern.
The fog around SSP is so opaque that I'm really wondering if it
>I can't gather requirements if I can't make any sense of what you're saying.
That's a reasonable concern.
The fog around SSP is so opaque that I'm really wondering if it
wouldn't make more sense to punt and wait for people to do enough
experiments to understand what turns out to be useful.
The
36 matches
Mail list logo
