[ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change
mike at mtcc.com
Tue Dec 4 18:12:11 PST 2007
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:30:27 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> Jim Fenton wrote:
>>> In the absence of a valid DKIM signature on behalf of the "From" address
>>> [RFC2822], the verifier of a message MUST determine whether messages
> from a
>>> particular sender are expected to be signed, and what signatures are
>> What's proving interesting is how completely the implication of this seems
>> have been missed by quite a few participants.
> I seem to have missed the discussion where anyone but you is suprised by
> this. If one is going to distinguish between originator signatures and
> others, then this requirement pretty obviously follows.
+1, and I had the dubious distinction of having to go through the
thousands of mail messages. I can't imagine that there is anything
new under the sun on this topic.
More information about the ietf-dkim