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

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:

>
>
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>>> What is the real use case for SSP, in your opinion?
>>
>>
>> s/the/a;
>>
>> ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs:
>>
>> score SSP_VIOLATION .79
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> 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" 
reason, I
offered "a" reason. There are others.

Note that the first question offered a false choice: there need not be 
"The" reason
for SSP or DKIM for that matter. There may be a variety of reasons why 
it's useful
to a variety of different people, where a preponderence of reasons 
amongst a
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 
suggest that
it would be a better use of time to find something that *is* useful 
rather than engaging
in a futile intrinsicist debate .

       Mike