Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements

["Hector Santos" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Thomas" <[e-mail]>
To: "John Levine" <[e-mail]>


> 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 do enough
> >experiments to understand what turns out to be useful.
> >
> 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.

This is complete hogwash and it is completely dumbfounding that a person who
was either commissioned, asked or had volunteered to write the design
requirements has already come to a own incorrect, highly subjective
conclusion about the need SSP without ever completing the work!!

This is completely unacceptable.  If you don't understand SSP and can't do
the job of writing the draft document, then it is probably best to  hand it
off to someone who does understand and is willing to be completely open
minded with ALL parties in mind and then allow chips fall where they may.

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 Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com






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