On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
allegedly wrote:
You believe both and apply a receiver policy determined by yourself that
will handle a message with an anomaly,
I'm with John on this. I don't see any merit in constructing a system
that allows anomalies soley for the purpose of giving a receiver less
certainty and more work to do.
Mark.
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications, Inc.
Alpharetta GA
404-847-6397
bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John L
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:43 AM
To: william(at)elan.net
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing
The statement that I sign only my own mail makes perfect sense.
If I have a message with your valid 3rd party signature, meaning that
you've published the key, and your SSP says you sign only your own mail,
which do I believe? Why or why not?
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html