ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required

2006-11-24 22:53:32
william(at)elan.net wrote:

Neither one the designers of DK[IM] are particularly interested in dealing with as is evident in previous discussions in regards to "3rd-party" policy considerations or 3rd-party signers.

Your use of "neither one" in this context rather than "none of" implies there are only two designers, when in fact there are quite a few more.

SSP and DKIM itself are under control of the Working Group. If there is consensus to do things differently, as there was with the body hash mechanism in -base, the original designers are likely to contribute their comments, but it is the WG consensus that rules.

I gather you are advocating a requirement that SSP queries be made for other addresses in addition to the From address. Doug Otis's draft suggests this as well. If this is the case, I suggest you ask for an issue to be opened on the issue tracker requesting the change you have in mind, such as "SSP should also be queried for the {Sender, Resent-From, Resent-Sender, List-ID, Reply-To, ...} header fields. It would be helpful to also explain (1) the benefit of doing so, and (2) how SSP results from the different header fields should be combined.

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>