Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements

[Damon <[e-mail]>]

On 8/5/06, Hector Santos <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John L" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Michael Thomas" <[e-mail]>
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Wonderful.

How many +1's am I allowed to put on this?
+1

Fog?! Give me a break. I have caught up with what is going on in a
matter of days and I am NOT confused or in a fog. I have disagreements
and suggestions, but by no means do I think we are tripping around in
the dark here.
To say there have been no suggestions that you have heard from
something less strict than "I sign all" means you have not read a word
I and others have said and especially over the last few days.
In the movies when the Whig's pretend not to hear the cannon fire,
it's funny- I'm not laughing.
Stop trying to steer the ship from the purser's vault.

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