Jim Fenton wrote:
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.
Um, huh? Why should we care how they're combined, assuming they'd
be combined at all? I view the use of SSP as completely outside of the
scope of this working group, just like we're not saying a DKIM signature
has any _defined_ purpose.
As far as benefit, insofar as people have been taking a "you break it,
you own it" stance on dkim-base, wouldn't it be interesting to know
the signing policy of the new owner too? Note that there is nothing
we can do to prevent such an inquisitive receiver. The feature seems pretty
marginal to me, though it does have a nice symmetry about it -- and fully
supporting it in SSP would be pretty simple.
Mike
-Jim
_______________________________________________
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