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

[Hector Santos]

Mark Delany wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> +1
> 
> If for no other reason than the obvious fact that SSP is not making 
> progress as it stands. We need some sort of reset if we hope to proceed.

Its unfortunate that it has nothing to do with technical reasons but the 
  powers that are pushing reputations instead. The fact is, Dave's never 
cared for SSP and its spelled out in his deployment guide, and the other 
guy pushing his reputation service has no room for SSP because SSP 
threatens that service business.

It is would be one thing to kill SSP for its technical merits, but no 
one has SHOWN it is flawed system. NO one.

Purely based on self interest, and unfortunately we have a few cogs who 
are masters of getting things KILLED if they want it to DIE.

It is a very SAD that not enough the technical developers are here to 
mandate the direction.

It is really a sad. Too bad.  Such a GOOD system is going thrown away 
because of the self-interest reputations pushers.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com