----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fenton" <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
What I said
(http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001242.html)
was:
So I don't think I'm contradicting myself, and I don't think
we need to work out the details for the -threats document,
which is our current focus.
Jim, I never said you did contradicted yourself. I thought we were on
the same wavelength. :-)
Actually, I believe it was a different discussion thread. You didn't
like the term EXCLUSIVE or something like that, let me look.... ok.. It
was July 22 in the IETF-MAILSIG mailing list,
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg01673.html
"I like this. I have been using the word "stronger" to
describe what you're calling "exclusive", but I can change
my habits.
-Jim"
You were correct. The proper term would be a STRONGER policy. Bank a
million bucks on it, guaranteed. I would absolutely never in my right
mind, ever called it "EXCLUSIVE" nor continue to use it in this context
for the next 6 months if I had realized this O=! policy allowed for
unknown entities to screw around with the message with detailed
operational recommendations to ignore 3rd party signatures and deemed
this to be an valid message.
But its moot point now. Its all squared now. :-)
So for the logic to be correct, it would more closely follow:
"SSP is for unsigned mail and 3rd party signed mail."
This aligns with my view of SSP, and the non-requirement to consult
SSP
if there is a valid originator address signature.
Inventor clarification restated, included with the decisively worked out
non-requirement operational detail for a valid OA signature. :-)
Thanks Jim
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org