----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
How about:
"I sign all email, and respectfully suggest that the risk
of harm due to accepting unsigned email is greater than the
risk of deleting all email transported through any body or
signature altering gateways that cannot be otherwise
authenticated"
That has always been the intepretation. In short, SSP provides a hint to
the Receiver local policy decisions.
The odds are very high most systems running in such an environment will
honor the hint because they are not interested in dealing with junk anymore
than the domain would want any receiver to accept forged domain junk.
Again: we are building a spring here, not a mousetrap.
A spring to what? To Acceptance or Rejection? An accelerator?
Sorry, but it gets a bit tiresome trying to blend in with clichés when we
all need to do is just say it like it is.
All of this email protection technologies proposed within the last 2-4 years
are exactly that - "Mouse Traps."
All of them are new prescribe new methods, some even patented, so that if
when one is followed, it is suppose to trap the dark dirty mouse who are not
following the new methods rules. That might also include the white clean
mouse if he didn't follow the rules too. C'est la vie.
The goal in these technologies is to hopefully make everyone follow the same
new rules.
DKIM is a new Mouse Trap, and if it doesn't work, some one will undoubtedly
proposed a better mouse trap tomorrow.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html