[ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.

   Well, Pat Peterson has already chimed in here. And I know that the
   SA guys already incorporate DKIM, so I'd say that the chances are
   pretty high that they will. Or are you asking me or other people to
   document this with PRD's to your satisfaction?

   FWIW: I have hacked SA to do exactly this, so there is even an
   existence proof.

> 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?

   Why does this matter? It's an implementation detail. You only asked
   whether people would use SSP that way. The answer is a resounding yes.

		Mike