Like I said when the initial vote was taken, without a NOMAIL policy I
don't have any real interest in what SSP can do. DKIM Base is enough.
Well I tried to bring it back up, seems to be going nowhere so will bow
out and let you folks do what you do. Please note from an ISP standpoint
only 3 things will matter
I sign all mail
I never send mail
I sign some mail
Anything else is just another burdensome query over strained DNS
resources. Heck it might be easier just to send mail via the AIN
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 Wietse Venema
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:19 AM
To: Hector Santos
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: MX dot was (Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues
Hector Santos:
I don't expect mail from this domain - kill it, don't
tag it or mark it as bad for user's to see, kill it,
don't pass it on. Its not ours! - If you do, it is
no longer our responsibility as DKIM-BASE suggest it
is."
Enough is enough.
I thought we already debunked the myth that SSP can tell receivers
what they should do.
It's a sender signing policy. It's not a receiver disposition policy.
====== ======= ======== ===========
Sender != Receiver
Signing != Disposition
I am of course assuming that this forum is conducting business in
plain English, not some variant with radically different semantics.
If my assumption is in error, please ignore this erroneous comment.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
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