Michael Thomas wrote:
Hi,
One of the things I noticed from recent discussions is that we need to
have clarity in SSP on what, exactly, qualifies as a valid signature for
"I sign everything".
Michael,
To carry your point farther than I suspect you intend:
From the virtually all of the SSP discussions, including recent exchanges, I
keep thinking that we are starting with mechanism and only secondarily worrying
about utility. Hence the grou confusion that is persistent.
Some folks think of SSP as being for unsigned mail. Some folks think of SSP to
facilitate end-user interpretation. Some folks think... And so on.
What we do not seem to have is anything that looks like a clear consensus about
what problem is being solved and why it will be useful to solve it.
Until the group settles on specific benefits to be obtained, for which there is
a solid basis to think recipient operators will find them useful, we are chasing
our collective tail.
I suggest that discussion about technology -- that is, mechanisms -- should be
deferred until the receive-side benefits (and, for that matter, the receive-side
consuming component) are established.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html