--- "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> wrote:
We do still need an optional way to
identity of domain or MTAs
that are ALWAYS using signature mechanism to be able
to reject email that
is supposed to be signed but was not (for this mail
policy record such as
SFP can be good fit).
FWIW. I've tried to make it as clear as I can that
policy is entirely a generic matter and that if, eg,
SPF were to create a place-holder for mailSIG I would
try and adopt it in an instant. In fact, about 3-4
months ago I sent Meng Wong a technical proposal that
would incorporate DomainKeys policy in SPF. It would
trivially adapt to any mailsig solution.
Bottom line? I want to get out of policy. It's a big
issue that I don't feel competent to address. Mailsig
needs to know that its output will be used for policy,
but in general, mailsig is subservient to policy.
Regards.