Like I said when the initial vote was taken, without a NOMAIL policy I don't have any real interest in what SSP can do. DKIM Base is enough. Well I tried to bring it back up, seems to be going nowhere so will bow out and let you folks do what you do. Please note from an ISP standpoint only 3 things will matter I sign all mail I never send mail I sign some mail Anything else is just another burdensome query over strained DNS resources. Heck it might be easier just to send mail via the AIN Thanks,
Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications 404-847-6397 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:19 AM To: Hector Santos Cc: IETF DKIM WG Subject: Re: MX dot was (Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues Hector Santos: > I don't expect mail from this domain - kill it, don't > tag it or mark it as bad for user's to see, kill it, > don't pass it on. Its not ours! - If you do, it is > no longer our responsibility as DKIM-BASE suggest it > is." Enough is enough. I thought we already debunked the myth that SSP can tell receivers what they should do. It's a sender signing policy. It's not a receiver disposition policy. ====== ======= ======== =========== Sender != Receiver Signing != Disposition I am of course assuming that this forum is conducting business in plain English, not some variant with radically different semantics. If my assumption is in error, please ignore this erroneous comment. Wietse _______________________________________________ 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
