[ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again

[John Levine]

>Right. So the question is, can a signature be constructed such that
>it doesn't interact with SSP to infer a binding above and beyond "I
>claim it passed through me"?

I'm increasingly getting the impression that we don't really
understand the semantics of SSP.  If a domain uses SSP to say that it
signs everything, and a message from that domain has both the domain's
signature and someone else's, is that OK?  I can easily imagine
interpretations of SSP that would go either way.

R's,
John

PS: "imply"