> Let's finish the DKIM signature spec, then see if we can agree to get
> out the smallest version of SSP on which we can get reasonable
> agreement (probably two bits, one for signs everything, the other for
> sends no mail), then we can return to the grand plans.
+1
The more I ponder this topic the more I'm inclined to believe that the
flags "I sign everything" and "I don't send mail" are the base concerns
that DKIM SSP must address. I'm optimistic that, if one isn't
fundamentally opposed to the entire SSP concept from the outset, we
should be able to reach a consensus that this basic functionality is
central to an SSP system that can do anything useful at all.
I think we've got a winner here -- and deliverable within a reasonable
time frame -- if we can keep the core requirements to a minimum.
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html