[ietf-dkim] ***SPAM-3*** Re: NEW ISSUE: SSP-02: Policy Scope // defaults

[Charles Lindsey]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:00:47 -0000, Douglas Otis <dotis at mail-abuse.org>  
wrote:

> On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:01 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>
>> But if they publish "s=SMTP" and something leaves their domain via
>> UUCP/NNTP/whatever-else, then they are saying it is OK not to be
>> signed.
>
> When messages enter into infrastructure supporting messages normally
> carried by SMTP, then the policy defined for SMTP should be used.
> This may block messages from other transports integrated into SMTP
> related infrastructure.  When NTTP messages never touch SMTP
> infrastructure, and the policy scope is s=SMTP, then NTTP messages are
> excluded from assertions of being signed.  This default would create
> less astonishment, and not affect NTTP messages that are handled
> separately from those related to SMTP.

I can think of nothing more astonishing to the readers of some newsgroup  
and of its associated mailing lists that to have some messages propagating  
freely within the newsgroup but not being visible within the mailing list.

The more you try to justify this "s=" tag, the deeper into the pit you dig  
yourself. It is evident to me that the whole idea is utterly indefensible.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5