Jim Fenton:
> > (1) It changes SSP from being a protocol that governs the error
> > condition of an optional protocol to being a protocol that governs
> > *every* email received by *every* MTA.
>
> Application of SSP to only messages containing broken signatures has
> *never* been proposed in any SSP draft. To do so would create an
> incentive not to deploy DKIM: there would be the fear that
> application of a DKIM signature might hinder delivery of messages,
> because of the potential for breakage that would not exist for
> unsigned messages.
An excellent reason to treat "no signature" as "bad signature"
and vice versa.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
