On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:59:19AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote: > You believe both and apply a receiver policy determined by yourself that > will handle a message with an anomaly,
I'm with John on this. I don't see any merit in constructing a system that allows anomalies soley for the purpose of giving a receiver less certainty and more work to do. Mark. > > Bill Oxley > Messaging Engineer > Cox Communications, Inc. > Alpharetta GA > 404-847-6397 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John L > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:43 AM > To: william(at)elan.net > Cc: DKIM List > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing > > > The statement that I sign only my own mail makes perfect sense. > > If I have a message with your valid 3rd party signature, meaning that > you've published the key, and your SSP says you sign only your own mail, > > which do I believe? Why or why not? > > Regards, > John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
