On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:02:55AM -0500, Arvel Hathcock allegedly wrote: > > Especially since one can achieve that same effect by having an SSP > > that says "I sign" everything and then don't sign any email. > > One can achieve the same effect perhaps but it's not as easy to > understand or explain: > > Potential customer question: "How do I communicate that I don't send mail?" > > Answer: "You imply in your policy that, in fact, you do send mail, that > all such mail must be signed, but then because there won't be any > signatures you'll achieve your goal." > > Customer scratches head: "Why not just a binary flag that says 'I don't > send mail'?"
So it could be an alias entry in SSP then. One is called "I sign all" and the other is called "I don't send". They both set the same bit. Besidewhich wont a UI hide the nitty gritty of what bits are set where? But you know, whatever. If people want a two-bit solution for a one-bit problem. That's ok :-) Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
