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

[Jim Fenton]

John Levine wrote:
>>> 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.
>   

Why not?

-Jim