In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:59:19AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote: >>> > The statement that I sign only my own mail makes perfect sense. >>> >>> If I have a message with your valid 3rd party signature, meaning that >>> you've published the key, and your SSP says you sign only your own mail, >> You believe both and apply a receiver policy determined by yourself that >> will handle a message with an anomaly, > > I'm with John on this. I don't see any merit in constructing a system > that allows anomalies soley for the purpose of giving a receiver less > certainty and more work to do.
+1 This is much like the reason I don't like stuff in the rDNS that indicates that "this machine should never send email". If you want that policy, do port 25 blocking. Don't make the rest of the world try to figure out whether you screwed up on your security or you screwed up on you published policy. And, have to do that all after receiving the traffic. -wayne _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
