Dave Crocker wrote:
Arvel,
It would help to have some engineering rationale and market demand
commentary to flesh our a call for "utter" rejection.
See the entire thread "How to make SSP utterly useless in one short
step". The one that started with this subject and then you didn't
respond. From what I can tell, you do not want to be educated, you
just want to stop SSP, and have said as much.
Mike
d/
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed
message needs to be removed.
-1. That simply has to be utterly rejected.
A DKIM signature is a statement of responsibility. When a signature
is present, an organization has taken responsibility for the message.
That's fine for DKIM-Base. We're discussing SSP though.
Arvel
_______________________________________________
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