[ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:

>
>
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> I think that the interesting meta issue here is that DKIM
>> verification does not require this; SSP requires this. I hope that
>> there isn't confusion about that because the two really are
>> severable.
>
>
> I am glad you raised this.  It encourages the basic question about the 
> relationship between SSP and DKIM?
>
> For example, are there reasonable SSP features that do not involve 
> DKIM at all.  (Answer, "I send no mail" is a prime example.)
>
> Note that "I send no mail" has nothing to do with signing, in which 
> case, the middle S of SSP is overly constraining.

Right, but by the same token I don't think we want to be in ocean boiling
mode either. But let's talk about the concrete: is there something other 
than
"I don't send mail" in the non-dkim category that should be on our agenda?

       Mike