In many parts of the world there are folk throwing rocks at each other or worse because they can't settle their differences. Why should that be a concern?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hector Santos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:48 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Michael Thomas; Scott Kitterman; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard > stuff as out of scope. > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > RFC 4405-8. > > > > Since the requirement is out of scope we are fully within our rights > > to merely note the existence and widespread use of the > scheme in > a non-normative reference. > > What does SUBMITTER protocol have to do with with SSP Lookups? > > Do you realize that there are still MANY people who are 100% > against using Microsoft's SENDER-ID? or even use SPF? > > You can't BASE SSP lookups or Policices on SPF/SENDERID/SUBMITTER > > Can we refrain from INTEGRATION ideas here? > > DKIM/SSP must WORK as a POST SMTP concept. It can not depend > on SMTP level ideas and you can't depend on RFC 2822 > containing the Return-Path. > > I don't see how ANY of these other ideas is RELATED to the > issue at hand. > > - Lookup mechanisms > - Signing Policies > > Lets not mix apples and oranges. > > -- > Sincerely > > Hector Santos, CTO > http://www.santronics.com > http://santronics.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
