Douglas Otis wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
It would be safer and less work for policy scoping to list the
domain's supported protocols.
Sorry, I just don't see how this will help nor see how it will be less
work. I see more complexity with little benefit or value behind it.
You many feel *SP is limited to transport protocols delivering messages
into SMTP related repositories, including messages bridged into SMTP.
In other words, *SP governs SMTP message compliance.
Well, I didn't say that. Practically speaking, DKIM is x822 and the
design issue is not delivering messages, but how it was originally
created, transmitted, gated, what have you.
You wish to have protocol management on creation, transportation and
transformations. What I said and I believe Charles also alluded to, it
is very difficult to accurately determine with any high reliability how
message were originally created or how they were transported and/or
GATED all of which may be transparent operations.
This is not really that different from being able to determine whether
all messages have been signed.
Only that it another more complex data point you have to reliably
confirmed, and you won't be able to. You can't compare this to a
straight forward SSP DNS lookup with a TRUE/FALSE explicit policy
declaration which can be easily confirmed.
IMO, you're asking a bit too much and practically speaking, not worth
the effort. Besides, whats the point when the more important part of
the policy question has been brushed aside by the poison pill ASP/SSP-02?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html