Dave Crocker 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.
We have acknowledged the relevance of both. This was discussed
ad nauseum in the thousands of messages about third party vouching,
added as provisional requirements, ID's written, and ultimately rejected.
I'm not sure how you could have missed that, but I know that my mind
was numb for the experience.
Mike
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