Sorry, by (c) I mean whether third-party signing is ok or whether the domain
only authorizes first-party signing. Currently, SSP is required to discover
that.
--
Arvel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arvel Hathcock" <arvel(_at_)altn(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Purpose and sequence for DKIM
specificationanddeployment
This is a personal attempt at describing a two-stage sequence of
producing DKIM capabilities, to permit the earliest possible deployment
of a basic service,
This is a very well thought out plan.
I note though that it sites as features (a) the authentication of a DKIM
identity and (b) the use of SSP to handle unsigned mail. There is also
the
issue of (c) the use of SSP to determine the types of DKIM identities that
are acceptable.
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org