Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Delany" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>

> 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 standard?   Market segment XYZ uses this? Market segment
ABC uses that?

Will DKIM-BASE become a "Batteries Required" protocol?

The last time this happen it wasn't a very good experience for us during the
early automated electronic merchant days where there was use 1 or 2
providers (years before the paypals, etc.) and your online order entry and
sales product designs where tightly integrated with these few early merchant
providers.   When customer support issues ensured with these vendors, we
felt the blunt of  PR issues by forcing our customers to use proprietary
"Batteries Required" concept.    We lost customers because of this.  I vowed
never to repeat locking a solution to specific vendors again.

What we are doing here is exposing a rather fuzzy,  unprotected DKIM-BASE
protocol which hedges it future on unknown, yet to be delivered,
trusted-layers  protocols (Reputation Services).

SSP should be an open standard.  It still doesn't take away the need for
DKIM based reputation systems.  But in my opinion, that's a different layer
altogether.

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






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