On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Levine" <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP
2. I don't care about the breakage and I'd prefer you
reject unsigned mail.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fundamental question here
is why should the recipient care what the sender claims he prefers?
Anytime you send e-mail to someone, you're basically asking them
to do
you a large favor by investing the effort to accept and deliver it.
Senders don't get to set rules about what recipients can do.
If thats the case, than explain why should receivers should bother
processing DKIM signature mail?
Whats the purpose?
The purpose is that the recipient knows who is responsible
for the mail.
If the signature is good, then the recipient can A) send feedback
to the right place and B) use the senders reputation to make decisions
about delivery
If the mail is unsigned then we're at status-quo.
That's it.
SSP is a different matter. The cynic in me says that the sole purpose
of SSP is to affect the deployment of DKIM.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html