On 7 Apr 2025, at 13:11, Dave Crocker wrote:
Bron,
On 4/7/2025 10:53 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I buy this argument. You're quite correct, DKIM doesn't have any
actual problems. It's perfect. It does exactly what it's specified
to do.
DKIM is also insufficient for the purpose for which it's trying to be
used. And there's an argument that "the purpose of a system is what
it does".
My point is that it is fine for what it is trying to do. It does
exactly that. That's sufficiency, not insufficiency.
I suspect you two just talked past each other because of Bron's use of
the passive in his second paragraph. If I understand correctly, Bron is
saying that DKIM is insufficient for the purpose for which *certain
anti-spam mechanisms* are trying to use it. Or maybe for the purpose for
which some other thing is trying to use DKIM. But either way, that DKIM
is sufficient for its designed purpose, and insufficient for some other
purpose. That isn't surprising, but maybe that needs to be clear in one
of the documents.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
