[ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting

[Eric Allman]

I do not agree with your position, which, as I understand it, seems 
to be that SSP is attempting to impose its will upon verifiers.  It's 
not, and it never was.  You've been choosing to ignore the parts of 
the spec that make that clear, and focus on the words that we have 
chosen and explicitly defined, interpreting them out of context and 
in your own way.

I've got no problem with adjusting language to clarify things, but I 
feel that your input has been unhelpful, and the fact that you've 
read over earlier versions of relevant documents without apparent 
concern until now is troublesome.

Senders have every right to tell the world how they would prefer that 
their mail be treated by recipients.  Of course they can't be sure 
their preferences will be honored, but they have every right to make 
the request.

eric



--On December 7, 2007 11:49:26 AM -0800 Dave Crocker 
<dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> Sorry it was not clear that the issue has been that working group
> discussion has only been from the perspective you describe and
> rather steadfastly 'left out' the one I described.
>
> Of course, any reasonable discussion would include both. But that
> first requires acknowledging the relevance of both.
>
> d/
>
> Eric Allman wrote:
>>>       SSP is one organization's attempt to tell another
>>>       what it should do with mail that is from a third
>>>       organization.
>>
>> You left out an important part of what SSP should (in my opinion,
>> completely legitimately) try to do:
>>
>>        SSP is one organization's attempt to tell another what it
>>        should do with mail that is from a third organization that
>>        claims to be from the first organization.
>>
>> Of course, SSP also includes guidance on unsigned messages.
>>
>> eric