On Friday 07 December 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday 07 December 2007 10:55, Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
That mail abuse is such an extreme problem is probably the only
reason
we would consider such a mechanism, but we need to be careful
that we do
not use it to entirely disenfranchise possibly legitimate mail
senders.
I assume you know what the meaning of "disenfranchise" is as you've
chosen to use it twice now. A legitimate user of my domain name is
exactly who I say is legitimate. There is no vote to be had on that
issue, and as such no vote to be taken away. Do you seriously
dispute
that?
Your perspective asserts certainties that we already know do not
apply.
My point is exactly that SSP will be operating in a context of
significant
uncertainty, yet it's design model really assumes differently.
I guess that's a yes.
If you believe that any random MTA has an equal right to emit mail
claiming to
be from my domain, then I think there's little left to discuss.
If you don't want people to forward your mail, then you're not obliged
to send mail to them.
If, on the other hand, you want to participate in a store-and-forward
protocol then you don't get to say that other hosts are not allowed to
emit mail claiming to be from your domain.
And that's also orthogonal to my point. That would be an argument against
SPF, but not SSP. If my mail is transparently forwarded (without
modification) then SSP presents no obstacle to store and forward. If someone
changes my message, then it's no longer my message. The fact that DKIM
signature break when messages are modified is a feature.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html