Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again

[Jim Fenton]

Hector Santos wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Please don't overreact. I would have spoken up sooner if I had understood the disconnect and if I thought that your interpretation was as broken as you seem to think it is. I think only minor adjustments are necessary. In this chart produced over 6 months ago, you, Eric and among others all indicated a "I like this chart" statement: What I said (http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001242.html) was: I really like Hector's table, and the terminology he has introduced to make it easier to talk about the SSP policies.  I think we still need to talk through the specifics of the table once we get chartered, as there will be some disagreement over the content of specific cells.  For example, I'm not convinced of the utility of the "weak" policy.  But that's good stuff to address once we get chartered. So I don't think I'm contradicting myself, and I don't think we need to work out the details for the -threats document, which is our current focus. So for the logic to be correct, it would more closely follow: "SSP is for unsigned mail and 3rd party signed mail." This aligns with my view of SSP, and the non-requirement to consult SSP if there is a valid originator address signature. -Jim

_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org