1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)

[John Levine]

>> There'll surely be more of these 1:1 agreements, while we wait for SSP
>> to become useful.  If we wait long enough, SSP won't even be necessary
>> for the big, high-value signers & verifiers.
>>
>
>Agreed.  It's much better to define a protocol to do this now so the process 
>scales and is not just available to large commercial senders.

But the key step in setting up the 1:1 agreements is for the receiver
to identify a sender which is enough of a forgery target to be worth
special treatment.

How does an SSP-like protocol do that?  Assertions like "I am a phish
target" don't do it.

R's,
John