On Wednesday 26 July 2006 16:28, Steve Atkins wrote: > There is no need to tie "signing of email" to "this domain > sends no email". As such it's not something that _has_ to > be in SSP (unlike "We send no non-signed email"). If you > believe SSP has value you pretty much have to believe > the same of SPF, and SPF already supports making that > statement. > > So the only advantage of supporting "we send no mail" > in SSP would be if you believe that the set of people who > look at SSP and do not look at SPF is noticably non-zero. > > That's not a reason not to add support for this to SSP, though, > as long as you recognize that it's just adding a redundant > way of saying the same thing at the cost of a small increase > in complexity and risk of contradictory policy messages > via different communication channels. > It might be useful (later, after the requirements discussion is complete) to explore the feasibility of a common policy record for the two for future revisions. The risk associated with complexity and the possibility of contradictory policy statements may make the associated up front pain worthwhile.
I would imagine that 'the market' is looking for simplicity in a holistic approach. The more that these technologies can be effectively integrated, the better off the average mail admin will be. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
