Hector Santos wrote: > Jim, > > Isn't this is a contradiction here? > > First you made a statement that the "DKIM WG has no authority to > create a policy framework describing the overall use of email, just > the use of DKIM." > > But then yet you just went ahead and described one anyway, further you > went ahead and dictated receiver design.
I'm just saying that there's way to accomplish very much the same thing as is being requested by expressing the policy in a way that is (IMO) in-scope for the DKIM working group. I am not trying to dictate receiver design. Receivers can continue to do whatever they want. But many receivers will be interested in the alleged sending domain's suggestion for how they would like unsigned mail supposedly from their domain to be handled. There is no mandate for the receiver to do so. > > Just think about this: > > Do you considered a message that is not DKIM signed has a presumption > of invalidity? Thus promoting a SSP check? There is no presumption of invalidity, any more than there is a presumption that messages being content filtered are spam. If SSP says that the messages should have a valid signature and they don't, then there might be a presumption of invalidity (although I would prefer to call it "suspicious") but that a result of the SSP check, not a presumption of an unsigned message by itself. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
