----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
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").
Hmmmmmm, unknown router and transient issues wasn't obvious?
Having 2nd or more signatures implies there are middle wares in the picture.
Interesting, I guess if we want to cover all grounds:
1) Define policies all compliant software on path from Point A to Point Z
to follow (which is what I was hoping to model),
2) To maybe a new consideration that would alter the routing behavior
of a compliant DKIM-SSP MTA. DKIM-Least-Resistance-Path?
I guess, if an implementation performing #2 is what it takes for the
compliant software in order to increase the survivability of the message,
than
I guess that is ok.
That might be what is needed for optimal survivability - reduce transport
path.
But overall, I was shooting for a protocol that everyone will follow, even
for multiple hop situations.
No, I don't have a interest in debating semantics of claims vs. demos, but
someone has to speak up for SSP concepts publicly!!! No one said it was
going to be an easy solution, and hopefully major benefits will emerge once
we get over the "Who moved my cheese?" syndrome. <g>
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html