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

[Dave Crocker]

Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Of course, SSP also includes guidance on unsigned messages.
> That and "organization" gives a lot more legitimacy to the kind of third
> parties that SSP is trying stop. But this whole formulation is problematic
> though. Better is:
> 
> SSP is an organization's attempt to *inform* receivers what its practices
> are so that receivers can make better disposition decisions about mail
> purporting, but without DKIM substantiation, to have originated from that
> organization.


Orwell is getting a lot of discussion, these days.  As well he should. The
tendency to deny or re-cast the meaning of simple, basic words has become common.

I will therefore suggest careful consideration that:

>    handling=  Non-compliant message handling request for the domain
>       (plain-text; OPTIONAL).  Possible values are as follows:
> 
>       process  Messages which are Suspicious from this domain SHOULD be
>          processed by the verifier, although the SSP failure MAY be
>          considered in subsequent evaluation of the message.  This is
>          the default value.
> 
>       deny  Messages which are Suspicious from this domain MAY be
>          rejected, bounced, or otherwise not delivered at the option of
>          the verifier.

is nothing so passive as "informing" receivers about a potential signer's 
practices.

Language like "message handling request" is requesting a specific behavior by 
the receiver.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net