I agree with John et al about not mandating DKIM-SSP.
However, as way of clarification:
There is enough operational experience with DK that
we can be confident that DKIM will do what we expect
it to. SSP, on the other hand, is purely a paper
design with no operational history at all.
DK includes "SSP" as part of the core specification. It's section 3.6 which
describes a system a lot like what several of us would like as a starting point
with DKIM-SSP. The DK spec says receivers SHOULD use "SSP" (and describes how
to do so with suitable warnings etc). John is right only if DK users rarely
bother with section 3.6 of the DK spec (which could be true I suppose but I've
no data to support that).
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html