[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

+1 


Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:37 AM
To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
Cc: ietf-dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP
tounsigned messages

Dave Crocker:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >>> 1521    Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages    new
dkim
> >>> Nobody    0 dhc at dcrocker.net    9 days ago        9 days ago    0
> >> 
> >>> Proposal: REJECT, but some wording changes may be needed for the
next 
> >>> rev, thread is [4] I mainly saw opposition to the change suggested
in
> >>> the issue, and little support, but some text clarifying changes
were
> >>> suggested (e.g. [5]). [4]
> >>> http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008424.html [5]
> >>> http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008467.html
> > 
> >> Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic
got 
> >> sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
> > 
> > See above "I mainly saw..."
> 
> Summary of proposal:
> 
> > All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message 
> > needs to be removed.

I would take this further: remove all text that says when to apply
SSP.  Instead, provide text that states the contribution that SSP
can make under different conditions:  mail with valid first-party
signature, mail with valid third-party signature, and mail without
valid signature.

	Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html