Patrick Peterson wrote:
SSP is one organization's attempt to tell another
what it should do with mail that is from a third
organization.
I really struggle with comments like these, too. I don't believe this is
true but even more fundamentally I don't believe that discussing
"comments about SSP" is productive.
Patrick, my saying "one comment about" was merely meant to give credit for
someone else noting a fact, not to cast it as an opinion.
It isn't an opinion. It is a factual statement that serves to raise a
perspective about SSP that has missing from balanced discussion about SSP.
A more complete version would be something like: If a DKIM signature from an
organization is not broken, then SSP is a mechanism by which that organization
can make statements to another about mail from a third.
We are so focused on the concerns of that first organization that we are
forgetting to worry about the fact that their statements are intended to
affect the handling of mail that they did not originate -- but someone else did.
If there is an error in this factual statement, I don't see it and certainly
would wish for someone to explain it to me.
The point of the perspective is not to disenfranchise the first organization,
but to make sure we are not blindly disenfranchising the third.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html