On Thursday 07 December 2006 08:14, John Glube wrote: > Therefore, in simplistic terms: > > The ESP is responsible to the Net to stop abuse > coming from its network. > > The ESP is accountable to the Net to respond to > complaints of abuse coming from its network. > > It is therefore appropriate in most cases that the > ESP is authorized to sign for mail sent from its > Network on behalf of its clients using the sender > header because the ESP is the responsible and > accountable party to the Net. > There has been a lot of discussion on the list in the last several months about the benifit/necessity of allowing domains to specify which 3rd party signers are authorized to sign for them. I think that this proposal, which, IIRC, is listed in the SSP requirements as a tentative requirement, would solve the problem you are trying to solve without diluting the tie between SSP and the 2822.From which is pretty much the entire point of SSP.
Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
