----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Thomas" <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
To: "John R Levine" <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
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.
Call it what you like. This FIRST PARTY only signature policy is as
exclusive as you can get.
If my interpretation is wrong, then your work is all flawed. The
protocol is weak and useless.
What is strange is that more than one person told you this when you
posted your PSEUDO-CODE which was proven to be flawed and allowed
securities loopholes. If it was because of your flawed PSEUDO CODE,
that I produced the SSP verification table/chart showing the Ideal
Boundary conditions. If you don't understand that, then I don't know
what to tell ya but you are CLEARLY not correct. It is not our fault
you choose to ignore the input provided.
If I am wrong, then this proposal is WHACKED!
Get your act straight before you try to change the world.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org