[ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Nov 9 09:33:59 PST 2006
Steve Atkins wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 8:34 AM, wayne wrote:
>> 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
> What is the real use case for SSP, in your opinion?
score SSP_VIOLATION .79
Is this really that difficult?
More information about the ietf-dkim