On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:00:47 -0000, Douglas Otis
<dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:01 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
But if they publish "s=SMTP" and something leaves their domain via
UUCP/NNTP/whatever-else, then they are saying it is OK not to be
signed.
When messages enter into infrastructure supporting messages normally
carried by SMTP, then the policy defined for SMTP should be used.
This may block messages from other transports integrated into SMTP
related infrastructure. When NTTP messages never touch SMTP
infrastructure, and the policy scope is s=SMTP, then NTTP messages are
excluded from assertions of being signed. This default would create
less astonishment, and not affect NTTP messages that are handled
separately from those related to SMTP.
I can think of nothing more astonishing to the readers of some newsgroup
and of its associated mailing lists that to have some messages propagating
freely within the newsgroup but not being visible within the mailing list.
The more you try to justify this "s=" tag, the deeper into the pit you dig
yourself. It is evident to me that the whole idea is utterly indefensible.
--
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