[ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation

[Michael Thomas]

Steve Atkins wrote:

>
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 8:34 AM, wayne wrote:
>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> As Wiestse recently said, much of this discussion has been gone over
>> many times and already archived.  From what I can tell, he seems to
>> think this all implies that the usefulness of SSP has already been
>> discussed and dismissed, and is wondering why these points are being
>> raised again.  I see just the opposite, I see it as having been
>> discussed and understood where it can be useful and am wondering why
>> these points are being raised again.
>>
>> Several others have cast doubt on the usefulness of SSP because it
>> doesn't solve the phishing problems, especially the look-alike domain
>> stuff.  I see this as being a red-herring.  SSP is not designed to
>> solve the phishing problem.
>>
>
> Yet that is the use case that seems to keep coming
> up.
>
> What is the real use case for SSP, in your opinion?


s/the/a;

~/.spamassassin/user_prefs:

score SSP_VIOLATION .79

Is this really that difficult?

       Mike