SSP consists of what the following statements mean
1. I sign all mail
2. I sign some mail
3. I sign no mail
4. I sign other domains mail
5. Other domains sign my mail
Number 3 has been declared out of scope. 4 and 5 appear problematic 1
and two are clearly defined and somewhat in agreement when it comes from
a single FROM: address with a single signature.
In what circumstances is SSP to be used.
When a signature arrives broken and possibly, no signature=broken
What to do with broken signatures?
Receiver side policy determines that.
So that leaves multiple signatures, multiple FROM: and mixed SSP records
from a list posting.
No change, receiver side policy determines what to do.
Scores can be addeed and subtracted for each scenario, but SSP is not so
much a technology but a informational description of sender intent.
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 6:00 PM
To: Michael Thomas
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting
Mike,
Given the existence of thousands of messages in the archive, it won't be
much
effort for you to point me to a thread of them. The one thing I will
ask,
however, is that it not merely be a reference to the issue, but rather a
thread in which the perspective is in fact, considered and incorporated
into
the design process.
I ask for the pointer because I'm not aware of such consideration taking
place.
d/
Michael Thomas wrote:
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/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
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