Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Fri, 04 August 2006 22:24 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G9860-0005ru-4X for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:24:44 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G985x-00007v-Mq for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:24:44 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k74MO5oL031333; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:24:06 -0700
Received: from fasolt.mtcc.com (adsl-216-102-208-10.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [216.102.208.10]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k74MO2MV031319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:24:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=0.4; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1894; t=1154730211; x=11 55594211; c=relaxed/simple; s=dicks.drop.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subj ect:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z= From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com>|Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-dkim]=2 0A=20more=20fundamental=20SSP=20axiom|Sender:=20|To:=20John=20L=20<johnl@ie cc.com>|Cc:=20=20ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|M IME-Version:=201.0|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B= 20format=3Dflowe d; bh=l255wKPKexQnobT7NeXNu/xvoVzxibp8yDaiG+NV2kY=; b=OOaokqibi7AcKP1TVULPlJXct29bQi53ZgoWcHVNTr8Cz8gBiSPu24dzsUjbz2IoxXxYOpBc KF5/+NvMTWZHLBdFhoebuO0T6IT9Sh8GLuRUe8izYjyD7H2OuM87lFP4;
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1894; t=1154730211; x=1155594211; c=r elaxed/simple; s=dicks.drop.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-T ransfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z=From:Michael= 20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com>|Subject:Re=3A=20[ietf-dkim]=20A=20more=20fundame ntal=20SSP=20axiom|Sender:|To:John=20L=20<johnl@iecc.com>|Cc:=20ietf-dkim@m ipassoc.org|Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit|MIME-Version:1.0|Content-Type:te xt/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B=20format=3Dflowe d; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DTHgzsy76Cqx29/einu/PnNiEwmM=3D; b=UlLd3tK1HIVpjNMFZlLAspRk+0DVeD/blpKvnoSTCKnSFk7Mgh51N8ZGGrXtiiIDoQ1Xx1g+ PdQ0aXw5TWPAAJ7zmzQdVx5YXXC1AtL3dq7eHs7XXxy33o+ENMdSCFDo;
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (sj-natpool-220.cisco.com [128.107.248.220]) (authenticated bits=0) by fasolt.mtcc.com (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k74MNTgi009761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:23:30 -0700
Message-ID: <44D3C8DB.4070101@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:23:23 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Thunderbird/0.8 Mnenhy/0.7.2.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John L <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
References: <20060804173538.54245.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <44D3C0BB.9000405@mtcc.com> <20060804174955.N15734@simone.iecc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060804174955.N15734@simone.iecc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Authentication-Results: fasolt.mtcc.com; header.From=mike@mtcc.com; dkim=pass ( sig from mtcc.com/dicks.drop.kirkwood verified; ); header.From=mike@mtcc.com; dkim=pass ( sig from mtcc.com/dicks.drop.kirkwood verified; );
X-XIPE-SCORES: dispose=pass; ACD=1.00; CLAM=0.00; COMPLY=0.00; URL=0.00; SA=0.00; HONEY=0.00;
X-Songbird: Clean, Clean
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird-From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
John L wrote: >> In other words, you really have no clue as to how these people use email >> and what the collateral damage would be. The average small firm/company >> doesn't even understand the difference between a mailing list, a blog >> or a discussion board. And you expect them to be able to make an >> informed >> decision? > > > I have a pretty good idea how lawyers use e-mail, since I do a fair > amount of expert witness work and do all of the routine stuff (i.e., > not of interest to opposing lawyers) by e-mail. Lawyers exchange some > of the highest value e-mail of anyone, case management messages with > courts and other law firms. If one of those messages gets lost, it > can mean that the lawyer loses a case by default. This is not a > hypothetical concern; see my blog entry at > http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/barge.html > > So if "sign everything" SSP makes their point to point mail more > reliable, law firms will use it in a millisecond. I cannot see how SSP can do anything but make false positives more likely. The real question is whether the gain in eliminating harmful mail is worth the occassional false positive. So if what you are saying is true, law firms would be literally nuts to turn SSP "I sign everything" on, and so I'm surprised to hear that you think they should. >>> Speaking as a receiver, I have to say I didn't find that info either >>> useful or interesting. >>> >> I wasn't aware that you wrote spam filters for a living. > > > I wasn't aware that "receiver" was a synonym for "commercial spam > filter vendor." One learns something new every day. Meaning that your opinion of utility is not the sole gauge of utility. In fact, you probably benefit a lot from people who find utility in things that you don't care about to keep your mail mostly spam free. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Paul Hoffman
- [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom wayne
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Paul Hoffman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment Bill.Oxley
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment John L
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom wayne
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Arvel Hathcock
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Damon
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom John Levine
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Bill.Oxley
- [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Mark Delany
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Mark Delany
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements John L
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardiz… Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Michael Thomas
- [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy John L
- [ietf-dkim] DKIM Client Policy Requirement Douglas Otis
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy Bill.Oxley
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy John L
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Mark Delany
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardiz… Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardiz… Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Scott Kitterman
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy Arvel Hathcock
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Damon
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy Jeff Macdonald
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy Jeff Macdonald
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom Graham Murray