----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> So if, during the threat analysis, we identify some such > > constraints that make life easier/better when combined with > > some ssp options then we could consider standardising them, > > or did you mean that any such constraints should be just up > > to the individual implementer/signer? > > That's pretty much how I view it. It's like which headers you sign: > there are some that are pretty obvious, but other that aren't and > it doesn't affect interoperability to have different signers have > different opinions that I can see. I'm somewhat skeptical that we'd > get a single answer that could be codified at this point, and the > amount of effort to get there could frankly be used on more > important problems, IMO. I agree. The only difference is that I only see one dissenter and the suggestions and unproven big-picture ideas proposed, included with bogus subject titles, are drastically different than what the DKIM/SSP charter attempts to address. The key questions is how SSP should be used, what impact it will have, under which policies, and where (what/how software needs to change). -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
