[ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Nov 9 11:39:35 PST 2006
Dave Crocker wrote:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> What is the real use case for SSP, in your opinion?
>> score SSP_VIOLATION .79
> The above is so wonderfully precise, concise and cryptic, that I am
> entirely missing your point.
> Could I ask you to provide enough text to explain what point you are
> making and, of course, why/how this example makes the point?
This is hardly rocket science. Filters could make use of the fact that
there was a
SSP violation. Filters like, oh say, Spamassassin. He asked for "the"
offered "a" reason. There are others.
Note that the first question offered a false choice: there need not be
for SSP or DKIM for that matter. There may be a variety of reasons why
to a variety of different people, where a preponderence of reasons
preponderence of people who think they're useful is good enough reason to
specify it. For the people who think it's not a very useful thing, I'd
it would be a better use of time to find something that *is* useful
rather than engaging
in a futile intrinsicist debate .
More information about the ietf-dkim