[ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> What an interesting perspective.  The degree of weight that gets used 
> for this feature is merely an implementation detail, rather than a 
> fundamental test of the mechanism's utility.

   I can't speak for Spamassassin, I'm not one of their developers
   and I don't know the intricacies of how they choose values. It
   appears that you're just trying to be argumentative here since
   you've seemingly dismissed the larger point that anti-spam filters
   rarely use individual pieces of information as a silver bullet.

		Mike