Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 13:41:21 -0400

Wietse Venema wrote:
>>      signed and invalid
>>      unsigned
> 
> This distinction helps the bad guys/gals, and hurts the good guys/gals.
> 

Thats an opinion and not one based on any engineering proof.

The fact is, the value of DKIM will be realized on anonymous 
transactions when you don't know who is GOOD or BAD. When reputation 
is know, DKIM has less value.

Think Experts Systems, Diagnostic Systems, Neuron and Fuzzy Boolean 
logic.  By eliminating the all important critical mal-function state, 
the potential to learn is lost.  The potential to add tolerance levels 
is lost. i.e, anyone with perpetual failure can eventfully be dealt 
with.  And by failure, that means any condition that is not expected, 
whether its the l= or x= detected problem, or just plain hashing failure.

In lieu of a standard DOMAIN Policy protocol as a major part of DKIM, 
it is far worst to ignore failure and promote it to unsigned state 
than to keep this state and pass it on to the next level - whatever 
that is.

To me, this is the REAL BIS material that should be reevaluated, 
because to me, that is one of the barriers to adoption.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Wietse Venema)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:45:18 -0400 (EDT)

> because to me, that is one of the barriers to adoption.

I rest my case.

	Wietse

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:46:17 -0400

>> because to me, that is one of the barriers to adoption.

DKIM's pathetic state is your case.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos