On Thursday 06 December 2007 12:49, Steve Atkins wrote: > In a well-designed protocol based on DKIM, yes I'd agree that a > validly DKIM signed message should not provoke an SSP query. > > But that's not the protocol we have. > > I think RFC 5016 shows a lack of understanding of DKIM (or is choosing > not to consider some important features of DKIM), and is > part of the push to try and build a next generation SPF on > an inappropriate base authentication technology. > I think you aren't understanding the purpose of SSP at all.
If any random signature from any domain obviates the SSP, what possible use is SSP? Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
