Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements

["william(at)elan.net" <[e-mail]>]

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 everyone and will
> resolved all the security issued related to DKIM.   This wasn't about the
> your so called "SSP FOG" rethorical chaos but rather a conflict of interest.
> Having SSP still in play will not serve your business well.

Hector, calm down. John does have business interests in commercial
accreditation services, however I think he in general somehow does
not like policy records (probably something to do with his dislike
of SPF) and that has not seriously changed and probably would not
have had no matter if he was working on DAC or not. Besides that DAC
seems to be more like accreditation organizations' business group
and the above mentioned fees are such organizations' membership dues
rather then actual accreditation service fees (though I hear some
accreditation service charge a lot more...).

I do want to point out though that there does seem to be number of
people on this list heavily involved in commercial accreditation
services. As many of these organization's business plan can be in
conflict with having mature email policy record framework, it would
be good if these people attempt to either avoid policy record
discussions or make their best effect to look at the world from the
point of that their (and other) accreditation systems do not exist
and in such a way try to examine use of the email policy records.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[e-mail]
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html