Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:17:00 -0500

>  SSP exists so that receivers can make better decisions about
>  handling their incoming mail.

There is a lot of truth in that statement.  I would say it like this though:  SSP exists so that senders can provide input in the hopes that receivers will make "better" decisions about handling their incoming mail.

-- 
Arvel 

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:40:36 -0700

> There is a lot of truth in that statement.  I would say it like this though:  SSP exists so that senders can provide input in the hopes that receivers will make "better" decisions about handling th…

Arvel,

Your statement is, of course, entirely correct.  The problem is that it probably
does not help the working group effort as much as a phrasing that focuses on the
Receiver-side.  The reason is that a focus on the receiver will help us focus on
adoption and use.

As soon as we have a basis for believing that Receive side folk with actually
USE information provided by senders, then the senders are much more likely to
provide it.  After all, providing it improves deliverability.

If we only focus on sender-side desires, then we will specify a jillion clever
mechanisms that will not get used, rather than the few that will.

d/

-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:55:07 -0400

Dave,
As a receiver I would like to know who sent the message, who signed the
message and any further information that might allow me to assign a spam
score accurately for further edge processing.
Thanks,

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> There is a lot of truth in that statement.  I would say it like this
though:  SSP exists so that senders can provide input in the hopes that
receivers will make "better" decisions about handling their incoming
mail.

Arvel,

Your statement is, of course, entirely correct.  The problem is that it
probably
does not help the working group effort as much as a phrasing that
focuses on the
Receiver-side.  The reason is that a focus on the receiver will help us
focus on
adoption and use.

As soon as we have a basis for believing that Receive side folk with
actually
USE information provided by senders, then the senders are much more
likely to
provide it.  After all, providing it improves deliverability.

If we only focus on sender-side desires, then we will specify a jillion
clever
mechanisms that will not get used, rather than the few that will.

d/

-- 

  Dave Crocker

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:04:35 -0700

At 11:40 AM -0700 8/2/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
>provide it.

We need more than that: we need a statement of how the receivers are 
expected by the senders to use it. If this is just "I wanted to tell 
you what I want" with no expectation of how that information will be 
used, it's just bluster.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:11:18 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> message 

These two statements are relatively precise and well understood.

> ...and any further information that might allow me to assign a spam

However this one is not.

What we need, now, are precise functional statements about specific pieces of
information that Receivers are highly likely to want to use.

The more general the statement, the less useful it is for a specification effort.

d/

-- 

  Dave Crocker

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:16:29 -0700

On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:55 AM, <[email-masked]>  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dave,
> As a receiver I would like to know who sent the message, who signed  
> the message and any further information that might allow me to  
> assign a spam score accurately for further edge processing.

Who signed the message is evident by the DKIM signature.  Valuable  
information would be whether this signature is "authoritative" for  
the 2822.From domain or whether the SMTP client adding DKIM  
signatures is "authoritative" for the domain.  Information related to  
what is or is not used offer less value, and may become a means to  
deny or disrupt service.

-Doug