Damon wrote:
8. The Protocol is not required to publish a Practice of any/all
unreleated third parties that MUST NOT sign on the domain
holder's behalf.
[INFORMATIVE NOTE: this is essentially saying that the
protocol doesn't have to concern itself with being a
blacklist repository.]
Spelling issue: unreleated = unrelated
also
This might be a semantics issue but, does this mean that, while it is
not required, it is still an option to be able to publish who MUST NOT
sign?
As I read it, it says that the (SSP) protocol MUST NOT have that
feature. Some other protocol might.
Personally I think this is right since I can't think of any
reason why the presence of a signature would in itself be a
negative. I guess that 5.3, req #9 also more-or-less says this.
I (and others, I expect) would argue strongly that it would
be wrong to do otherwise.
We had a related discussion about whether mail is required to
be routed directly or not, but that should IMO be separate from
this and doesn't currently seem to be in the document, which
again I think is probably correct, though others may differ.
Stephen.
PS: The above is with chair hat off, of course.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html