Hector Santos:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > It obvious that there are two relatively strong viewpoints: one the
> > passive that Dave describes and one the active that, amongst others, I
> > describe.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Do we try and accommodate both? If so, how?
>
> In my opinion, and I had asked the chair a week or so to consider this
> approach:
>
> I also proposed a straw vote on the fundamental question:
>
> Do you believe there are security problems
> directly or indirectly related to DKIM-BASE that are worth
> solving or addressing using a Sender Signer Policy concept?
None. If a message is signed by example.com, then that signature
introduces no security vulnerability, even if the message originates
from some other, unrelated, domain.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
