Hector Santos wrote:
----- 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?
It wasn't obvious that that was your concern. And if it is
your concern then I guess you never meant that the additional
signature was a negative, you were saying that any additional
trace field is a negative - a statement that has nothing much
to do with crypto.
Having 2nd or more signatures implies there are middle wares in the picture.
So would a bunch of Received headers though, wouldn't they?
What's special about DKIM-Signature fields that you want to
control their numbers but not other trace headers?
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html