+1
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 Wietse Venema
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:37 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf-dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP
tounsigned messages
Dave Crocker:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
1521 Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages new
dkim
Nobody 0 dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net 9 days ago 9 days ago
0
Proposal: REJECT, but some wording changes may be needed for the
next
rev, thread is [4] I mainly saw opposition to the change suggested
in
the issue, and little support, but some text clarifying changes
were
suggested (e.g. [5]). [4]
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008424.html [5]
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008467.html
Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic
got
sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
See above "I mainly saw..."
Summary of proposal:
All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message
needs to be removed.
I would take this further: remove all text that says when to apply
SSP. Instead, provide text that states the contribution that SSP
can make under different conditions: mail with valid first-party
signature, mail with valid third-party signature, and mail without
valid signature.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
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