On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:26:27 -0000, Jim Fenton <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hector Santos wrote:
Unless I am missing something, this new separation and complexity
provide no world wide standardization for general case, widely adopted
expectations by the domain owners. While is it conceivable the domains
might not care how a receiver reaches a decision, I believe they will
care that the end result is consistently the same across the board, at
least from a standards point of view.
Domain owners have no reason to expect their mail to be handled in any
particular way. They can state what they do, IMO they can state
something about how they'd like their mail handled, but
expectations...no.
SSP is a mechanism for enabling domain owners to express their
expectations.
AIUI, the proposed "checker" will interpret those "expectations" in the
context of the particular message with its particular combination of
signatures, From addresses, Sender addresses and whatever else, and pass
its interpretation on to the "adjudicator". Essentially, the description
of the "checker" in the draft will be just the way of expressing clearly
the "semantics" of SSP.
What the adjudicator then does is out of scope (our scope is to ensure
that he is in no doubt about the domain owner's expectations).
I.e. it is perfectly in order for a standard to speciffy the methods
whereby a horse may be led to water - but no further.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html