[ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

[Jim Fenton]

The general case of this, "designated signing domains", was considered 
and rejected about a year ago during the SSP requirements process (issue 
#1360).

-Jim

Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:
> For SSP to have any value, I need to have the ability to handle the following scenario
>
> joebob.org SSP = isp.foo.com is my signing entity
> isp.foo.com SSP = I sign 3rd party mail http://foo.com/list_of_entities_I_sign_for
>
> without a way of stating that I wont be able to serve a million business customers who have no clue on how to manage DNS or do DKIM which rather slows adoption rates. Without this the only people doing DKIM will be the spammers (most of my currently signed mail is from spammers) and large phished entities like paypal. Now since I have a speaking relationship with paypal I dont need to use SSP for them. 
> thanks,
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Fenton [mailto:fenton at cisco.com]
> Sent: Sun 1/27/2008 2:44 AM
> To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta)
> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP
>  
> Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:
>   
>> I will state <LOUDLY> that without the ability to handle 3rd party signing statements, SSP is useless to me.</LOUDLY>
>>   
>>     
>
> Can you clarify what you mean by "3rd party signing statements"?  Normal 
> volume level is fine.
>
> -Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>