Folks,
Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What is the difference?
The second clause is only trying to make explicit that a third
party signatures is not an acceptible substitute for a first
party signature from that domain. Which it isn't. You're making
a leap that it should also cast a shadow on the first party
signature.
I made no such leap. You are talking semantics.
While its an interesting question, SSP is two steps further along
from where-we-are-now:
0. Right now we should be focusing on the threats draft.
1. Then on the base protocol.
2. And *then* on details like this.
I'd love to see some more review of the threats document. It can't
be that perfect can it?
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org