Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #55 - Clarify legal and privacy implications of failure reports

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 1/6/21 6:59 AM, Dotzero wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:41 AM Michael Thomas <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 1/5/21 10:02 PM, Dotzero wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:19 PM Michael Thomas <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         No it was an unalloyed good that you brought that up. We can
>>         use a much
>>         more data-driven approach rather than opinion and conjecture.
>>         It would
>>         be good for it to be required reading for everybody on this
>>         working
>>         group, and not snarled at as a heresy. DKIM itself was a leap
>>         of faith.
>>         16 years later it is gratifying that we have data.
>>
>>         Mike
>>
>>
>>     DKIM was NOT a leap of faith. At the time there was plenty of
>>     data from DK (Domain Keys) and IIM to inform those involved.
>>     Please stop making assertions of "fact" which are simply not true.
>>
>     Um, dude, I was one of the authors of IIM. You're literally
>     claiming to know more than me about what was in my head.
>
>     Mike
>
>
> So all the data was in your head? I wasn't using IIM but was 
> publishing DK and getting feedback from Yahoo! and a few other 
> receivers through private channels. There were other senders in a 
> similar situation as myself. And yes, people were discussing things 
> privately (Web of Trust groups). Your claim that there was no data 
> available at the time is quite simply false.
>
You are literally telling me what I knew at the time. It was a lot of 
the reason that we got push back to form the DKIM working group. It 
wasn't until I read that paper that I got some concrete feel for how it 
affected things, and that was 16 years later. The biggest change for the 
better was senders closing open relays. It's still not clear that DKIM 
had any affect on that.

Mike