[ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms
stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Wed Aug 2 11:47:28 PDT 2006
Hector Santos wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie>
>> Hector Santos wrote:
>>> want to make sure that only emails directly from their system are
>>> accepted as valid by recipient.
>> Aha! Possible sound of penny dropping...
>> Is it a mail routing policy you want to express and nothing
>> except incidentally to do with signatures? That may be entirely
>> reasonable, but is IMO at least reasonably likely to fall outside
>> the scope of SSP (on the basis that it says nothing about
>> signatures, same as "I send no mail").
> Hmmmmmm, unknown router and transient issues wasn't obvious?
It wasn't obvious that that was your concern. And if it is
your concern then I guess you never meant that the additional
signature was a negative, you were saying that any additional
trace field is a negative - a statement that has nothing much
to do with crypto.
> Having 2nd or more signatures implies there are middle wares in the picture.
So would a bunch of Received headers though, wouldn't they?
What's special about DKIM-Signature fields that you want to
control their numbers but not other trace headers?
More information about the ietf-dkim