Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
You believe both and apply a receiver policy determined by yourself that
will handle a message with an anomaly,
Please fortive me for characterizing it this way, but this seems to be an
exemplar of the "do whatever feels good" school of protocol design.
There is a pretty substantial history that says that Internet protocols succeed
when they are simple and precise and that their core semantics carry little or
no opportunity for making semantic choices.
d/
-----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
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html