[ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

[Jeff Macdonald]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:57:43AM -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> >
>> I also hadn't realized that DKIM was strictly meant to benefit
>> receivers.
>
> Did you really think DKIM will alter the deeply embedded mail filtering 
> landscape?  :-)
>

Like you at one time said, I was hoping for a deterministic result. ;)

<snip>
> For us to even bother signing mail, we have to have some SSP assurance that 
> receivers are going to DUMP forged mail.  Otherwise, to me, there is no 
> payoff - but just glorified worthless overhead.

I haven't had a chance to read the SSP doc, but I heard it uses i= for that
case.


-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald at e-dialog.com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 
:: www.e-dialog.com