Here you mention that "one or more valid SSP records". In later steps (7?)
you don't subsequently say which record to choose if there is more than
one. I suppose that the first one is as good as any, but it should at
least be
explicit.
Mike
Jim Fenton wrote:
The list has been uncharacteristically silent since I submitted an
update to the SSP draft 10 days ago, so I thought I'd point out the new
draft (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01) and a few of the highlights (more
complete info on the changes are in section B.1).
The most significant change is a new tag, called "handling", that
represents what I called the SSP "Strong" Option in my presentation at
IETF 69. As I mentioned at the time, we needed a better word than
"strong", and this is what Eric and I came up with. It takes one of two
values: "process", the default, means to do what you would normally do
with a message that is Suspicious. "block" is a way for a domain to
express the preference that messages violating SSP be dealt with more
harshly, such as by deleting, bouncing, or rejecting them.
Section 5, "Third-party Signatures and Mailing Lists", has been removed
since it belongs better in the Overview document(s). Note to overview
authors: hint, hint.
Most of the other changes in the document, which are numerous, are to
tighten up the wording rather than to introduce anything new or
different. For example, when user-granularity SSP was in the document,
SSP applied to an "entity" which was either a user or a domain. the
word "domain" is sufficient, and clearer, now.
Comments appreciated as always!
-Jim
_______________________________________________
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