Mark Delany wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:01 PM, J D Falk wrote:
Jon Callas wrote:
I offer as a suggestion that we issue an SSP document that describes
only the basic broken-signature-only model of SSP with only the one
policy (sign-all). After that, we look at enhancements to the model
carefully. We seriously discuss whether they are outside the charter
because of the effect it has on the global email infrastructure to
turn DKIM from an opt-in protocol to a you-must protocol. We also
seriously have to look at other policies to discuss their
effectiveness along with their environmental effects.
+1
This will let us experiment and learn through real-world operational
experience, rather than continually rehashing the same arguments.
Plus One. I'm inclined to this approach if we can't reconcile the
differences that appear to have stalled SSP progress.
Is there a common subset of SSP that most everyone agrees on?
I thought we had documented it in RFC 5016.
(in other words: -1 to above approach)
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html