I do not agree with your position, which, as I understand it, seems
to be that SSP is attempting to impose its will upon verifiers. It's
not, and it never was. You've been choosing to ignore the parts of
the spec that make that clear, and focus on the words that we have
chosen and explicitly defined, interpreting them out of context and
in your own way.
I've got no problem with adjusting language to clarify things, but I
feel that your input has been unhelpful, and the fact that you've
read over earlier versions of relevant documents without apparent
concern until now is troublesome.
Senders have every right to tell the world how they would prefer that
their mail be treated by recipients. Of course they can't be sure
their preferences will be honored, but they have every right to make
the request.
eric
--On December 7, 2007 11:49:26 AM -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Sorry it was not clear that the issue has been that working group
discussion has only been from the perspective you describe and
rather steadfastly 'left out' the one I described.
Of course, any reasonable discussion would include both. But that
first requires acknowledging the relevance of both.
d/
Eric Allman wrote:
SSP is one organization's attempt to tell another
what it should do with mail that is from a third
organization.
You left out an important part of what SSP should (in my opinion,
completely legitimately) try to do:
SSP is one organization's attempt to tell another what it
should do with mail that is from a third organization that
claims to be from the first organization.
Of course, SSP also includes guidance on unsigned messages.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html