[ietf-dkim] Proposal for specifying syntax and semanticsformultiple signatures

[Barry Leiba]

>> In particular, any attempt to include that sort of information in DKIM
>> is explicitly out of scope for this working group.
> 
> I thought we have moved on to SSP?  SSP is not out of scope. Correct? I am
> referring to SSP to help answer many of these questions being raised,
> including this thread about nth signatures and ambiguious mandate on how it
> should be "Intepreted!"

Well, first, we're still focusing on the base, which is supposed to be 
done within two months now.

Second, even SSP does not aim to address the quality of the message or 
the trustworthiness of the signer.  The closest it comes to that is that 
in the current formulation, the RFC822 From domain can advise the 
recipient that it would like them to be suspicious of messages that are 
not signed directly by it.

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology  (leiba at watson.ibm.com)
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam