[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You believe both and apply a receiver policy determined by yourself that > will handle a message with an anomaly,
Please fortive me for characterizing it this way, but this seems to be an exemplar of the "do whatever feels good" school of protocol design. There is a pretty substantial history that says that Internet protocols succeed when they are simple and precise and that their core semantics carry little or no opportunity for making semantic choices. d/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John L > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:43 AM > To: william(at)elan.net > Cc: DKIM List > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing > >> 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, > > which do I believe? Why or why not? > > Regards, > John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
