[ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing

[Mark Delany]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Bill.Oxley at cox.com allegedly wrote:
> You believe both and apply a receiver policy determined by yourself that
> will handle a message with an anomaly,

I'm with John on this. I don't see any merit in constructing a system
that allows anomalies soley for the purpose of giving a receiver less
certainty and more work to do.


Mark.


> 
> Bill Oxley 
> Messaging Engineer 
> Cox Communications, Inc. 
> Alpharetta GA 
> 404-847-6397 
> bill.oxley at cox.com 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John L
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:43 AM
> To: william(at)elan.net
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing
> 
> > The statement that I sign only my own mail makes perfect sense.
> 
> If I have a message with your valid 3rd party signature, meaning that 
> you've published the key, and your SSP says you sign only your own mail,
> 
> which do I believe?  Why or why not?
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> 
>