Hector,
NEW ISSUE: Reputation is out of scope or define it.
As a point of information, "reputation" is mentioned precisely once in
the SSP specification, and that is to say that it is out of scope.
[...]
Unless it is clearly defined what is meant by reputation and how it is
related, I suggest that we remove all reputation considerations from
SSP discussions or drafts and reinforce that it is out of scope.
See above. Also, I think I don't see anything unreasonable about people
attempting to place SSP within a broader context on a mailing list, so
long as the work doesn't normatively depend on it.
I don't believe SSP, nor DKIM-BASE nor any other technology XYZ will
alter or replace local policy decisions. However as part of the local
policy decision process, I believe the SSP design goal was such that
DKIM and SSP will be part of the total decision making process and to
help protect against certain high potential exploitations of DKIM
signers.
On this I agree but I don't understand its relevance to the issue at hand.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html