On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:02:07 -0400 (EDT) John L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have to say that the more discussion I see from advocates of SSP, the >less I think that anyone really understands what it's supposed to do. > >So here's the main SSP axiom that I think should be self-evident, but >apparently isn't: other than the trivial (but useful) case of I send no >mail, the most that SSP can tell you is that a signature is missing. > I take it then that you see distinguishing between first party and third party signatures as either being of no value or not being feasible?
I ask because from my perspective, that is an essential feature for a policy protocol to have significant utility. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
