ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations

2007-12-03 23:03:35
On 4 Dec 2007 05:40:27 -0000 John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote:
While senders certainly can't dictate receiver policy, giving an
indication of what they expect to have happen is perfectly
reasonable and reduces uncertainty.

Uncertainty about what?  You can be 100% certain that if you've
published your policies in SSP, any receiver who cares to know about
them can look them up.

No matter what you do, you don't get certainty about their internal
filtering practices any more than you get certainty about whether
their internal delivery practices use POP, IMAP, or Baudot paper tape.

Agreed.  That's why I said you can't dictate receiver policy.  It's because 
you can't and we all know that.

Reduced uncertainty about what the sender intended.  We've been through 
this before, so there's no need to tell me that is valueless.  I disagree 
and I doubt on another round through it either of us will convince the 
other.

Ever since the SSP work was deferred at the start of the working group, my 
expectation was weald get either no SSP or one that was seriously watered 
down.  I'm still waiting to see if this group manages to produce something 
worth deploying.

Scott K


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html