[ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

Perhaps his provider signs all outgoing mail regardless without having
to parse a list of who signs their own mail locally. Daemon is also
right, spam from bots inside his ISP space will be sending mail that is
signed by the provider until they are stopped by the abuse department.
Thanks,

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 Stephen Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:12 AM
To: Damon
Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms


Hi,

Damon wrote:
> I was having this discussion with someone off-list but...
>  
> Where I live, I am serviced by only one ISP. I get a discount by
having 
> my services (business, home, cell, internet, etc) bundled by this one 
> provider and they sign all my messages. Choosing another provider etc.

> may not be financially agreeable. I also know that there are spammers
or 
> bots on this provider that take enjoyment out of using my name. So I 
> want to say- Trust my signature but expressly distrust my providers 
> signature if not also signed by me. Both messages, mine and the
spammers 
> are genuine and unchanged, signed by my provider, but only my signed 
> messages are valid.
>  I see this as a feature.

I don't understand what the provider's signature is bringing to the
party in this case. Why is:
	your signature plus a please-distrust-this-provider signature
better than
	your signature alone?

Stephen.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html