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

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker 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.

We have acknowledged the relevance of both. This was discussed
ad nauseum in the thousands of messages about third party vouching,
added as provisional requirements, ID's written, and ultimately rejected.
I'm not sure how you could have missed that, but I know that my mind
was numb for the experience.

       Mike
>
> 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
>>
>