Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for somethin

+2

And if we're changing, I'd prefer we not finalise a new syntax
until after we're done discussing the semantics we'd like.

S.

Tony Hansen wrote:
> +1
>
> Mark Delany wrote:
> > Some history. SSP derived from DomainKeys policy. DomainKeys policy
> > derived from SPF as, at the time, there was some hope that SPF might
> > encompass DK-type systems so the syntax was made as compatible with
> > SPF as possible so it could just "slot in".
> >
> > Given that the "slot in" to SPF hasn't occurred in two years and SSP is
> > likely to now expand in a dimension different from SPF, maybe now is a
> > good time to dispense with the syntactic and cryptic comparability
> > goal and do something that's a little more human friendly.
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html