On 8/4/06, Damon <deepvoice(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 8/4/06, Mark Delany <MarkD+dkim(_at_)yahoo-inc(_dot_)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 06:44:34PM -0400, John L allegedly wrote:
> > >I cannot see how SSP can do anything but make false positives more
> > >likely. The real question is whether the gain in eliminating harmful
> > >mail is worth the occassional false positive.
>
> I guess I'm a little confused about the false policy concern.
>
> If a signer wants to take that risk, isn't that for them to decide?
Yes but.. I don't think that everyone is going to be aware of the risk
or ignore it thinking it can't happen to them. I still haven't stopped
smoking even though the Surgeon General puts all that scary warning
stuff on my smokes. It can't happen to me...
I want to add a little more...
It would also be ok if there was an alternative that was useful... and
will just refer to my previous posts as to why I thing "I SIGN SOME"'s
value is not worth the expense.
So without adding flags or some doable mechanism for how to verify the
DK even if it's munged.. I can't see the value in SSP as a whole.
And you know me!... I really would like to see it work. I am not
trying to torpedo it for some ulterior motive.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html