In many parts of the world there are folk throwing rocks at each other or worse
because they can't settle their differences. Why should that be a concern?
-----Original Message-----
From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:48 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Michael Thomas; Scott Kitterman; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard
stuff as out of scope.
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
RFC 4405-8.
Since the requirement is out of scope we are fully within our rights
> to merely note the existence and widespread use of the
scheme in > a non-normative reference.
What does SUBMITTER protocol have to do with with SSP Lookups?
Do you realize that there are still MANY people who are 100%
against using Microsoft's SENDER-ID? or even use SPF?
You can't BASE SSP lookups or Policices on SPF/SENDERID/SUBMITTER
Can we refrain from INTEGRATION ideas here?
DKIM/SSP must WORK as a POST SMTP concept. It can not depend
on SMTP level ideas and you can't depend on RFC 2822
containing the Return-Path.
I don't see how ANY of these other ideas is RELATED to the
issue at hand.
- Lookup mechanisms
- Signing Policies
Lets not mix apples and oranges.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html