Hector Santos wrote: > NEW ISSUE: Reputation is out of scope or define it.
+1 for declaring it "out of scope." > I don't believe SSP, nor DKIM-BASE nor any other technology XYZ will > alter or replace local policy decisions. Yep. But if a reasonable person who hasn't been involved in the SSP arguments reads the draft and immediately concludes that it /does/ alter or replace their local policy decisions, they'll grumble and stop reading and get back to doing real work. So, my suggestion would be to mention that any decision about whether to accept, reject, or print out and chew on a particular message is left entirely to the verifier -- and may involve external sources of information. (This latter portion is to forestall the inevitable accusation that DKIM does nothing to prevent spam.) _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
