----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In sum, I think the SSP-req doc should say "SSP must be >> published by DKIM signers, and the format is <this>". > > Disagree, dkim base works now. There will be people that > will move very slowly into implementation and requiring SSP to > be implemented at the same time will slow adoption. That movement is already at a crawl. Nonetheless, a DKIM-BASE only system is inherently, by default, a SSP "Neutral Policy" system and this relaxed default protocol provision is what this new protocol inherently "dangerous" to pursue en masse. I don't know about others, but it is what has my hairs standing on my back. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
