On Friday 07 December 2007 10:55, Dave Crocker wrote: > Michael Thomas wrote: > >> That mail abuse is such an extreme problem is probably the only reason > >> we would consider such a mechanism, but we need to be careful that we do > >> not use it to entirely disenfranchise possibly legitimate mail senders. > > > > I assume you know what the meaning of "disenfranchise" is as you've > > chosen to use it twice now. A legitimate user of my domain name is > > exactly who I say is legitimate. There is no vote to be had on that > > issue, and as such no vote to be taken away. Do you seriously dispute > > that? > > Your perspective asserts certainties that we already know do not apply. > > My point is exactly that SSP will be operating in a context of significant > uncertainty, yet it's design model really assumes differently. >
I guess that's a yes. If you believe that any random MTA has an equal right to emit mail claiming to be from my domain, then I think there's little left to discuss. I totally and completely understand why you think SSP is a bad idea. Mike's point is the key one. His point is right one. From your perspective then, I guess there's no phishing problem because anyone is equally legitimate for sending from any domain. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
