This capability (expressing desire for how the receiver should handle
mail in specified circumstances) is somewhat along the lines of an
"expectation" as defined in the SSP Requirements draft. What it says
there is that, in addition to signing practices like "I sign all mail",
SSP also conveys an expectation about whether the recipient should
always expect a valid signature. For many domains, this is "no" because
they send messages through mailing lists and other things that may break
signatures. Other domains, such as those used for transactional mail,
would have a greater expectation of a valid signature because they don't
expect to send through such things.
To put it another way, some domains are more interested in
deliverability (even if the signature is broken), and others are more
interested in security.
So while the wording is somewhat different, I interpret the
"expectations" expressed in the requirements document as providing the
sort of capability Pat describes.
-Jim
Patrick Peterson wrote:
I (respectfully) disagree with Wietse. I think it is very important for
the sender to be able to express their desire to the receiver for how to
handle mail in specified circumstances. I do not believe expressing this
desire constitutes "telling receivers what to do".
This is a very important point as many of the senders I know who want to
deploy DKIM feel this is an important component. Large scale deployments
of DKIM require significant time and testing before adequate confidence
can be established of reliability. Once adequate confidence is
established many senders want to request that receivers do not deliver
unsigned or improperly signed messages.
These senders are not under the illusion they can force receivers to do
anything. But they feel it is a significant value to express their
desire.
pat
-----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 6:19 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
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html