ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing

2006-07-31 08:27:30
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