Arvel Hathcock wrote:
The SSP specification needs to be modified to remove all directions
for recipient actions, instead limiting itself to statements about the
actions of a potential signer.
This is a manifestation of the thinking that providing guidance to a
receiver about what you might like to see happen is a violation of
some Internet taboo. I just don't see a problem here.
I'd have to agree. I thought the point of SSP was for the sender to
provide the receiver on guidance on what it would like done with
messages that are believed to be inauthentic. While I understand Dave's
concern about organizations communicating policy, if this is a start, so
be it. It's very constrained.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html