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

[Wietse Venema]

Arvel Hathcock:
> >> 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.
> >>   
> > 
> > I mostly agree with Wietse's proposal.  Yes, I'm aware that diverges 
> > sharply from the current draft.
> 
> I could get behind Wietse's proposal also if it hadn't started with "I 
> would take this further."  I'm concerned with the "this" he refers to 
> which encourages avoiding SSP completely in the presence of a verifiable 
> signature from just anybody whom-so-ever.  I view that notion as 
> completely defeating SSP.

I am not discouraging SSP.

"take this further" refers to the deleted text that directly preceded it:

> > All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message 
> > needs to be removed.

I propose that we remove not only this text but also other text
that says when to apply SSP.

	Wietse