Doug,
The protocol we are discussing is DKIM, although another protocol might
find SSP useful it's out of scope for this discussion.
Thanks,
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications, Inc.
Alpharetta GA
404-847-6397
bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:41 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP
-Suggestion to Remove this.
On Sep 26, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael Thomas:
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
10. The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a
valid first party signature is found.
Hector, doesn_t it say exactly what you want it to say? It says
that the protocol must not require invocation when valid first
party signatures are found. It doesn't say "THOU SHALT NOT INVOKE
THE PROTOCOL". I see nothing that needs to be changed.
Exactly.
I agree.
Are these policies to be used in only one protocol, or might there be
multiple protocols that make use of these policy records?
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html