Dave Crocker wrote:
3. If #2 is correct, then my question is why the extended semantics are
essential? What problems are created by not including them in the
specification? What substantial benefits are obtained by including them?
The one downside is that there seems to be a serious amount of confusion
about what people think receivers will do with this information, and the
SPF experience is not encouraging. At the very least even if the protocol
doesn't try to falsely dictate what a receiver must do, it should at
least warn
unsuspecting deployers that if they don't understand exactly what the
extremely narrow use scenario SSP is then they'd be crazy to set it. I
don't think it's really sunk in as to how small the set of senders who
will find
this useful is, or how disruptive it will be if you accidentally set it
when it
doesn't apply to you.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html