Hi Bill,
You do remember the original SSP specs had a clear "NO MAIL" policy
option? And its still possible now with the current SSP draft - declare
a strict policy with no key, its a trigger a negative classification of
the transaction A.K.A - rejection.
--
HLS
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
Please note that when I suggested an SSP record that would indicate that
"We send no mail" it was pointed out forcefully that SPF could do that
for me. So the effect on some was to think that SSP must be supportive
of SPF/Sender ID, that is where that impression has been coming from.
Thanks,
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Patrick Peterson
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:19 AM
To: Steve Atkins; DKIM WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Next-generation SPF cabal
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 really struggle with comments like these. I don't believe RFC 5016 is
a push to build a "next generation SPF" but there's no response I can
think of to this accusation. (Although "Yes, I have stopped beating my
wife." comes to mind. :) ) This statement is subjective and attributes a
specific motive to SSP/5016 supporters that can't be be rebutted without
going down the ad hominem, unconstructive route.
(And please don't take this as an argumentum ad hominem but rather as an
argumentum ad nuncium. It is certainly not meant as an ad hominem and
hopefully not taken as one.)
pat
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html