On 01/19/2006 17:50, Michael Thomas wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On 01/19/2006 15:50, Michael Thomas wrote: > >>Earl Hood wrote: > >>>On January 19, 2006 at 03:10, "Hector Santos" wrote: > >>>>Sender-Signing Policy (SSP): > >>>> > >>>> NONE (no policy) > >>>> o=? WEAK (signature optional, no third party) > >>>> o=~ NEUTRAL (signature optional, 3rd party allowed) > >>>> o=- STRONG (signature required, 3rd party allowed) > >>>> o=! EXCLUSIVE (signature required, no 3rd party) > >>>> o=. NEVER (no mail expected) > >>>> o=^ USER > >>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>>Wouldn't be easier of the signer can assert a role so such checks > >>>are not necessary by a list server? > >> > >>No. SSP is not for signed mail, it's for unsigned mail. > > > > If it's a third party signature you still need to check SSP for EXCLUSIVE > > policy. > > That doesn't alter what I said. You fundamentally cannot get out of > making checks if you're missing a (first party) signature. That's > SSP's purpose in life. > OK. Then I misunderstood what you said, because I agree with that.
Scott K _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
