Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:28:20 -0500 wayne <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In <[e-mail]> Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> John L wrote:
>>>   SSP exists so that receivers can make better decisions about
>>>   handling their incoming mail.
>>> Corollary:
>>>   Information not useful to receivers doesn't belong in SSP.
>
>I agree, but it is also important to remember that anything that has
>no value to the sender will likely not be put into the SSP either.
>
>
>> For this initial round of SSP, the wording of the Corollary probably 
needs to be:
>>
>>     Information that is not widely viewed by receivers as essential 
doesn't
>>     belong in SSP.
>
>I think this is very short sighted.  It is rare that a protocol gets
>more than one or two revisions.  I don't think it is certain that DKIM
>will actually even surpasses DK usage and receives wide adoption, but
>I think it is very unlikely that we will get a chance to update DKIM
>and have that update receive wide adoption.
>
>There certainly should be a cost/benefit analysis done.  If a feature
>is costly to add and has little obvious benefit to both senders and
>receivers, then, yeah, drop it.  However, if a feature is cheap or
>trivial to add, then just because there aren't people willing to use
>it *immediately* is no reason to rule it out.  And, yes, the overall
>complexity of the SSP system needs to be added into the cost, I'm not
>saying that all features that, in isolation, are "cheap" should be
>added, just that we shouldn't design SSP for only today and not for
>5-10 years down the road.
>
+1

Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html