ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out ofscope.

2007-06-09 05:34:21
John Levine wrote:

Would it help the discussion if large deployers of DKIM expressed their
opinions on nomail? (Again, they could express their opinions and this
item could still be held for later.)

If nomail is indeed the most useful SSP-ish assertion, which I agree
it is, it might make sense for people who care about it to go work on
moving MX . (or some other pure nomail approach) along the standards
track rather than getting entangled in SSP.

-1. IMO, I don't see any entanglement and it would be far easier to implement this via a new SSP protocol rather than begin changing the long time semantics of MX which IMO has a far greater chance of not being considered.

One killer problem of putting nomail into SSP is that if example.com
publishes a nomail SSP, and sends signed mail, there is no agreement
at all here on which one you believe.

The same can be said when he declares "I ALWAYS SIGN" or "I NEVER SIGN" and sends unsigned or signed mail anyway, respectively.

Should we believe him?  Where you do draw the line?

In either case, it is an easy decision. Its the fault of the domain. Hence, as always, the domain bears the consequences of its mistakes.

--
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

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