Damon wrote:
On 8/4/06, Steve Atkins <steve(_at_)blighty(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Aug 4, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> John L wrote:
>
>> I REALLY do not want an SSP that says "I sign everything, and
>> here is my estimate on a 0 to 10 scale of how much you should care."
>
> I assume that you'd complain if it boiled down to a single bit?
>
> 0: "mail from this domain may transit manglers, adjust accordingly"
0: "I sign some mail"
A 0 _still_ means: I have a published a record just so you have
to do more CPU/DNS work... because you are going to have to accept it
anyway.
I'm sorry: how exactly is a protocol forcing a receiver to do anything?
If you can explain that, then maybe there really is hope for
strangulation-over-ip.
Mike
> 1: "the signature should always be intact"
>
1: "I sign all mail"
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
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