This capability (expressing desire for how the receiver should handle mail in specified circumstances) is somewhat along the lines of an "expectation" as defined in the SSP Requirements draft. What it says there is that, in addition to signing practices like "I sign all mail", SSP also conveys an expectation about whether the recipient should always expect a valid signature. For many domains, this is "no" because they send messages through mailing lists and other things that may break signatures. Other domains, such as those used for transactional mail, would have a greater expectation of a valid signature because they don't expect to send through such things.
To put it another way, some domains are more interested in deliverability (even if the signature is broken), and others are more interested in security. So while the wording is somewhat different, I interpret the "expectations" expressed in the requirements document as providing the sort of capability Pat describes. -Jim Patrick Peterson wrote: > I (respectfully) disagree with Wietse. I think it is very important for > the sender to be able to express their desire to the receiver for how to > handle mail in specified circumstances. I do not believe expressing this > desire constitutes "telling receivers what to do". > > This is a very important point as many of the senders I know who want to > deploy DKIM feel this is an important component. Large scale deployments > of DKIM require significant time and testing before adequate confidence > can be established of reliability. Once adequate confidence is > established many senders want to request that receivers do not deliver > unsigned or improperly signed messages. > > These senders are not under the illusion they can force receivers to do > anything. But they feel it is a significant value to express their > desire. > > pat > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema >> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 6:19 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 > >
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
