----- Original Message ----- >> Jim Fenton wrote: >> >> But the signature from the mailing list adds value (it says the message >> is really from the list), so many domains would not want to express that >> policy. What's needed is a way to unambiguously interpret the role of >> the signature (i.e., is it a signature representing the author or the >> mailing list) and the SSP delegation proposal has made that >> ambiguous in some cases.
> Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I'm still missing why we are still arguing about this. The spec definitely > needs some language about controlled versus uncontrolled signing and the > unsuitability of uncontrolled signing for SSP delegation. I don't know what > more we need. +1 -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
