[ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality

[Dave Crocker]

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>  Do envision a reasonable scenario where a receiver has adopted SSP and
>> conforms to it, but does not have the stated sender enforcement ...
> 
> Yes, trivially. Look at the way Spamassassin works...
> 
> SSP_STRICT_FAIL = 4
> SSP_ALL_FAIL = 2
> SSP_UNKNOWN = 0


That's the problem with a vague spec.  I didn't mean to ask for a description 
of how this might be done, but a discussion of the likelihood it would.

To use your example, where 5 declares spam, why is the configuration likely to 
set STRICT to 4 rather than 10 or 100, given the semantics of Strict?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net