John Levine:
> > you or Dave are operating from for that not be true. From the looks
> > of it, that set of axioms leads to "SSP == bad", so I again wonder
> > why you're wasting your time, unless it is to prevent SSP from being
> > published.
>
> An SSP that publishes actual things that a sender actually does, is
> non-controversial. For example: this domain signs all the mail it
> emits that has its domain on the From: line, or that domain emits no
> mail at all with its domain on the From: line.
>
> It's the mountain of add-on semantic baggage that's a problem.
I agree. SSP is good for senders to announce what mail they send
and/or sign. That's the non-controversial part.
The rest I see as false expectations based on false assumptions.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
