Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> 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've always wondered why dkim is taking on the task of supporting
"I don't send mail" since the statement makes no reference to
signatures at all. Arguably, that's something that should be dealt
with by someone else, who might also think about saying "I only
send mail that's less than 1MB", or, "I only send invoices".
If we do want SSP to allow the "I send no mail" statement then I
think we need to explicitly justify that being done here.
Just in contrast, a statement like "I sign no mail" would be much
more clearly within our scope. (Note: I'm not saying I prefer that
one, I just understand the scoping better.)
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html