John, this would be all well and good except for the fact that even
though my name isn't on the draft I've had a great deal to do with
it from even pre-DKIM days. Hector's interpretation is wrong, and
that's not how it should be implemented. "Exclusive" is Hector's
term, not the -ssp draft's. The draft could be a little more explict
on this point, but the intent has always focused on the need for a
first party signature, not abhorance of multiple signatures.
Mike
John R Levine wrote:
Well, OK. if a message has both a signature from the From: domain and
one from someone else, does that pass? Why or why not?
-----
From: Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
For the EXCLUSIVE policy? Following SSP, it would be a REJECT because the
policy says no 3PS should exist. If it does, then it should be given the
evil eye. ...
I understand what you are saying, but it is what it is. That is what the
DKIM/SSP drafts defines. It is already "solved" per se.
-----
From: Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
I've always interpreted this as it should pass. What would be the reason
that it shouldn't? That the other signature gave it cooties?
-----
I'm increasingly getting the impression that we don't really understand
the semantics of SSP.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org