Participating only: On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:11 AM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> but let's be clear on my reasoning for using the name DKIM is "it is > intended to plug into the same place in the stack as DKIM does; and reuse > the key infrastructure of DKIM - meaning it will be more understandable to > MOST people if it's called DKIM2 than if it's called e.g. SEEDS (Signed > Explicit Email Destination and Source) - and that branding will assist with > getting people to convert. > > Your assertion about understandabability collides with likelihoods of > cognitive confusion. Especially since -- as the Motivation document > demonstrates and a lot of industry discussion demonstrates -- people > already tend to misunderstand what DKIM does. > > As they misunderstand DMARC, with one vendor claiming it eliminates CEO > spoofing. > > By the way, with your logic, UDP and TCP should have similar names, since > they plug into the same place in the stack. > > Or perhaps 'place in the stack' is of import to a very, very narrow > demographic, whereas the much larger demographic is a lot more likely to > more attention to basic email functionality than to abstract network > architecture placement. > I'm not following the objection here either with respect to architectural placement. As I understand where in the email flow this would occur, it would be right where DKIM is now, either instead of it or alongside it. That's probably where I would implement it given my understanding so far. So then, at least, the intent to depict it as being at that point in the handling chain seems pragmatic to me. And I don't know what else to call it until we've started to gel on both implementation and outcome. Is there a better suggestion? -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
