ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] lets add one more shall we?

2007-06-06 07:43:25

 (1) Some messages from this entity are not signed; 
 the message  SHOULD be presumed to be legitimate in the absence 
of a valid signature.  This is the default policy.
2) All messages from this entity are signed; all messages from
this entity SHOULD have a valid signature, either directly on
behalf of the originator or on behalf of a third
arty (e.g., a mailing list or an outsourcing house) handling the
message.
(3) All valid messages from this entity are signed, and SHOULD
have a valid signature from this entity.  Third-party signatures
SHOULD not be accepted.
4) Signing policy for this domain is expressed at the individual
address level.  A second Sender Signing Policy Check should be
performed specifying the individual address      
(5) This Domain does not send messages/This domain only signs 
third party messages
(6) yer sister resembles a goat

Policy assertion 5 and 6 harm no one, please some and voting is
something you do repeatedly to get the result you want. Some here assert
that policy assertion 5 can be done elsewhere. I was under the
assumption that SSP sender's signing policy was to be complete. If I
cannot assert that I sign but never send, the SSP is not complete.
Thanks,

Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 9:46 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out
ofscope.



Stephen Farrell wrote:

Hector,

Tomorrow I'll dig through the archive and find the reference
for where we agreed that the "nomail" requirement text that was
previously in the ssp-reqs draft would be excised.

If someone in an earlier TZ wants to do that in the meantime,
you'll have my thanks,

No volunteers eh;-)

So I went back in time and found:

Issue 1365 [1] included a mention that we could/shoud
delete the "never send mail" item.

That was raised by Eric on the list [2] in February and
dicussed at length.

Following that discussion I started a strawpoll [3] that
resulted in a 2:1 ratio [4] in favour of deprecating the
feature in SSP.

That's all nice and clear so "nomail" is out of scope, as
the WG agreed, even if not overwhelmingly. It seems like
all of the people who wanted to keep the feature then still
do, and I've not noticed anyone changing their mind. So,
there's no reason to reopen this that I can see.

So let's be grown-ups and move on,
Stephen.

[1] https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1365
[2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007139.html
[3] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007185.html
[4] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007254.html
_______________________________________________
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

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