MX dot was (Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues

[Hector Santos]

Wietse Venema wrote:
> Hector Santos:
>>        I don't expect mail from this domain - kill it, don't
>>        tag it or mark it as bad for user's to see, kill it,
>>        don't pass it on. Its not ours!  - If you do, it is
>>        no longer our responsibility as DKIM-BASE suggest it
>>        is."
> 
> Enough is enough.
> 
> I thought we already debunked the myth that SSP can tell receivers
> what they should do.

Only in your exclusive circle of friends.

What was WELL established is that it provided a HINT to RECEIVERS.

SSP IS EXACTLY ABOUT TELLING THE RECEIVER WHAT TO DO WITH DKIM 
violations.  What is EXPECTED and NOT EXPECTED!

Why is that people like yourself keep thinking that sending JUNK to 
receivers, that YOU want them to PROCESS is going to always be acceptable?

If you don't give them HINTS, they might just IGNORE it completely or 
take actions you seem to fail not recognize at this point.

> It's a sender signing policy. It's not a receiver disposition policy.
>        ====== =======                    ======== ===========

So why are you bringing it up that it is?

> Sender != Receiver

So why are you bring up this silly bogus idea?

> Signing != Disposition

So why are you bring up this silly bogus idea?

> I am of course assuming that this forum is conducting business in
> plain English, not some variant with radically different semantics.
> If my assumption is in error, please ignore this erroneous comment.

I'm sure many, your "exclusive circle of friends" will blindly agree 
with you.

Lets watch the silly +1 nows from the same "circle of friends."

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com