[ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options

[Stephen Farrell]

Hector,

Hector Santos wrote:
>> I don't see why people would pay any more attention to an SSP
>> statement of such than they do to SPF statements of it. Just the
>> opposite, shoehorning unneeded cruft into SSP makes it less likely
>> that people will pay any attention to it, I'd think.
> 
> Steve, the SPF example was just an example to Stephen, that such a "No
> (Outbound) Mail expected" concept does exist and is used in practice.  

Thanks for that. I do understand the reasoning behind the requirement,
but I don't understand the logic of why it should be addressed by SSP
as opposed to say SPF or whatever.

S.