[ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy
deepvoice at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 11:49:06 PDT 2006
On 8/24/06, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
> Damon wrote:
> > What do we do when there is no signature and no d= domain to
> > work with?
> > This is sort of hazy in my mind.
> That's an orthogonal question to your first assertion, and is the very
> subject that
> SSP attempts to answer. My only point here is that dkim-base does give you
> control over who signs in your domain's name. That's an already solved
> that needn't be revisited by SSP.
I don't subscribe to the Word of the Day but orthogonal is indeed what
the question was.
I completely understand that I have control over whom may sign for
me. The issue I have is the granularity and selectivity's of the
policy. See my earlier example. This is exactly (minus the fake domain
names) what I am doing right now on a very large scale. So it is a
very "real world" example.
More information about the ietf-dkim