----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Otis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "IETF-DKIM" <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:22 PM Subject: Re: accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)
> > On Sep 11, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > >> There are so many issues with this DKIM-BASE + LOCAL >> POLICY UNKNOWN that I find it hard to see how it justifies >> the risk of signing. > > What issues and risks do you refer to with respect to signing? - Inconsistent results. - Fake it to you make it. - 3rd party signatures - Bad Actors remain in legacy operations HOPING for unknowns. - Good Actors remain in legacy operations FEARING the unknowns. - Receivers requiring to support multiple "batteries." and so on and so on. > How does policy ameliorate these issues and risks with signing? See http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/draft-santos-dkim-dsap-00.txt -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
