Hector,
I don't plan to engage in verbal jousting about what's a claim
vs. what's a demonstration. I've seen use-cases that satisfy me
about the utility of e.g. the "I always sign everything" statement,
(and some variants) but I've not seen anything I find at all
convincing for the "I want my stuff signed only be me" statement
(and variants).
Others may of course disagree and we'll establish what the WG
thinks over the next weeks/month-or-so. (But there's no need for
us to debate what I think about what I've read:-)
Hector Santos wrote:
...and
want to make sure that only emails directly from their system are
accepted as valid by recipient.
Aha! Possible sound of penny dropping...
Is it a mail routing policy you want to express and nothing
except incidentally to do with signatures? That may be entirely
reasonable, but is IMO at least reasonably likely to fall outside
the scope of SSP (on the basis that it says nothing about
signatures, same as "I send no mail").
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html