I was having this discussion with someone off-list but...
Where I live, I am serviced by only one ISP. I get a discount by having my services (business, home, cell, internet, etc) bundled by this one provider and they sign all my messages. Choosing another provider etc. may not be financially agreeable. I also know that there are spammers or bots on this provider that take enjoyment out of using my name. So I want to say- Trust my signature but expressly distrust my providers signature if not also signed by me. Both messages, mine and the spammers are genuine and unchanged, signed by my provider, but only my signed messages are valid.
I see this as a feature.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
On 8/1/06, Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> I guess, if agreed, that'd suggest a potential non-requirement for SSP,
> "no need to specify who's not supposed to sign".
+1, and added.
Mike
_______________________________________________
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
