The general case of this, "designated signing domains", was considered
and rejected about a year ago during the SSP requirements process (issue
#1360).
-Jim
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
For SSP to have any value, I need to have the ability to handle the following
scenario
joebob.org SSP = isp.foo.com is my signing entity
isp.foo.com SSP = I sign 3rd party mail
http://foo.com/list_of_entities_I_sign_for
without a way of stating that I wont be able to serve a million business customers who have no clue on how to manage DNS or do DKIM which rather slows adoption rates. Without this the only people doing DKIM will be the spammers (most of my currently signed mail is from spammers) and large phished entities like paypal. Now since I have a speaking relationship with paypal I dont need to use SSP for them.
thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Fenton [mailto:fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sun 1/27/2008 2:44 AM
To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta)
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
I will state <LOUDLY> that without the ability to handle 3rd party signing
statements, SSP is useless to me.</LOUDLY>
Can you clarify what you mean by "3rd party signing statements"? Normal
volume level is fine.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html