ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author

2008-01-22 13:23:07
But if you already have enough data to make a decision about a message's disposition in that case, you also have enough data to make a decision about that message's disposition regardless of any SSP policy that anyone might express.

Right. That's another reason that "strict" is a bad idea, because it gives senders the unwarranted impression that they control (or even affect) things that we know they don't.

So the question in this case really comes down to whether the policy we are discussing (or any particular SSP statement) is useful, or at least non-harmful, when you are evaluating a message for which your existing
? policies do not provide a completely efficacious decision algorithm.

Right again. That's where I say that statements about things about which the sender has actual knowledge (e.g., "I sign everything") are far more likely to be useful than statements about things that they don't.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>