Arvel Hathcock wrote:
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.
The gist of this sub-thread suggests that the requirements for an initial SSP
specification are simply:
1. It must be extensible (another IANA registry)
2. The initial set of practices that can be published receive quick, strong
support -- that is, clear rough consensus -- in the working group. In other
words, if there appears to be any degree of concern, controversy or lack of
general interest in a feature, it should be immediately deferred. (Deferred
does not mean ignored or dismissed. It means deferred.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html