ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp

2006-09-09 12:00:22
wayne wrote:

In <20060909171917(_dot_)40437(_dot_)qmail(_at_)simone(_dot_)iecc(_dot_)com> John 
Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> writes:

1 - All mail from this domain is signed (valid).

3 - This domain sends no mail (effectively equivalent to [1]).
I don't think these two are equivalent.
Sigh.  Please provide an operational example where a reciever would
treat mail differently.  To help things along, here are the cases:

Sigh.  Please read the email you were responding to.  I already gave
the answer:

:                                                 For the receiver, it
: is much safer to reject email that has an 2822.From: coming from a
: domain that says that they send no email than it is for the much more
: generic case of "I sign all email".
Right -- if a message has a broken signature with "I sign everything" published, you always have to wonder whether it was broken in transit if it doesn't verify.
If you publish "I never send email", what's to wonder?

      Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html