Scott Kitterman:
On Thursday 06 December 2007 12:49, Steve Atkins wrote:
In a well-designed protocol based on DKIM, yes I'd agree that a
validly DKIM signed message should not provoke an SSP query.
But that's not the protocol we have.
I think RFC 5016 shows a lack of understanding of DKIM (or is choosing
not to consider some important features of DKIM), and is
part of the push to try and build a next generation SPF on
an inappropriate base authentication technology.
I think you aren't understanding the purpose of SSP at all.
If any random signature from any domain obviates the SSP, what possible use is
SSP?
SSP is good for senders to announce what mail they sign. That's
the non-controversial part.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html