----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What I said (http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001242.html) > was: > 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. Jim, I never said you did contradicted yourself. I thought we were on the same wavelength. :-) Actually, I believe it was a different discussion thread. You didn't like the term EXCLUSIVE or something like that, let me look.... ok.. It was July 22 in the IETF-MAILSIG mailing list, http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg01673.html "I like this. I have been using the word "stronger" to describe what you're calling "exclusive", but I can change my habits. -Jim" You were correct. The proper term would be a STRONGER policy. Bank a million bucks on it, guaranteed. I would absolutely never in my right mind, ever called it "EXCLUSIVE" nor continue to use it in this context for the next 6 months if I had realized this O=! policy allowed for unknown entities to screw around with the message with detailed operational recommendations to ignore 3rd party signatures and deemed this to be an valid message. But its moot point now. Its all squared now. :-) >> 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. Inventor clarification restated, included with the decisively worked out non-requirement operational detail for a valid OA signature. :-) Thanks Jim -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
