> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting > byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:22 PM > >To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) > >Cc: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to > >posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics > > > > >And, yes, one could start with Crocker's reputation and go > >through some sort of formal delegation mechanism, but that's > >more complicated and it ignores the potential for independent > >action that this Hammer fellow retains. So no matter what > >Crocker delegates, one is left needing to know something about Hammer. > > > >d/ > > > > This Hammer fellow can do whatever he wants but that doesn't and > shouldn't involve Dave Crocker if Dave Crocker doesn't care to be > dragged into it. It has nothing to do with reputation. Your assertion is > almost like someone listening to the neighbor that says it's ok to go > pick Hammers apples despite Hammer having put up a no trespassing sign. > I haven't raised the formal delegation (positive) situation - I have > only raised the "I don't delegate agency to anyone" (negative) > situation. Not very complicated at all.
Just because it is possible to abuse a particular configuration doesn't mean that the configuration is inherently invalid. If that were true, then none of us would be willing or able to send any email at all. Yes, it's possible to come up with scenarios that involve abuse, but there are at least as many that are legitimate, i.e. where the sender is truly sending on behalf of the author and with their express consent. The goals behind SSP are laudable, but from where I sit I see relatively few domains that lock down their email sufficiently to reasonably be able to deny their individual account holders the right to use their address as they desire. Yours may well be one of these, but please don't assume that because it works for you therefore it should be applied across the board to everyone. Ellen > > There may be value in including a formal delegation capability but that > is another discussion. > > Mike > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
