-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:31 PM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting
byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:22 PM
To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to
posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics
And, yes, one could start with Crocker's reputation and go
through some sort of formal delegation mechanism, but that's
more complicated and it ignores the potential for independent
action that this Hammer fellow retains. So no matter what
Crocker delegates, one is left needing to know something about
Hammer.
d/
This Hammer fellow can do whatever he wants but that doesn't and
shouldn't involve Dave Crocker if Dave Crocker doesn't care to be
dragged into it. It has nothing to do with reputation. Your assertion
is
almost like someone listening to the neighbor that says it's ok to go
pick Hammers apples despite Hammer having put up a no trespassing
sign.
I haven't raised the formal delegation (positive) situation - I have
only raised the "I don't delegate agency to anyone" (negative)
situation. Not very complicated at all.
Just because it is possible to abuse a particular configuration doesn't
mean that the configuration is inherently invalid. If that were true,
then none of us would be willing or able to send any email at all.
Yes, it's possible to come up with scenarios that involve abuse, but
there are at least as many that are legitimate, i.e. where the sender is
truly sending on behalf of the author and with their express consent.
The goals behind SSP are laudable, but from where I sit I see relatively
few domains that lock down their email sufficiently to reasonably be
able to deny their individual account holders the right to use their
address as they desire. Yours may well be one of these, but please don't
assume that because it works for you therefore it should be applied
across the board to everyone.
Ellen
There may be value in including a formal delegation capability but
that
is another discussion.
Mike
Mike
_______________________________________________
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