----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF-DKIM" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim]
SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)
On Sep 11, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
There are so many issues with this DKIM-BASE + LOCAL
POLICY UNKNOWN that I find it hard to see how it justifies
the risk of signing.
What issues and risks do you refer to with respect to signing?
- Inconsistent results.
- Fake it to you make it.
- 3rd party signatures
- Bad Actors remain in legacy operations HOPING for unknowns.
- Good Actors remain in legacy operations FEARING the unknowns.
- Receivers requiring to support multiple "batteries."
and so on and so on.
How does policy ameliorate these issues and risks with signing?
See
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/draft-santos-dkim-dsap-00.txt
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html