(1) Some messages from this entity are not signed; the message SHOULD be presumed to be legitimate in the absence of a valid signature. This is the default policy. 2) All messages from this entity are signed; all messages from this entity SHOULD have a valid signature, either directly on behalf of the originator or on behalf of a third arty (e.g., a mailing list or an outsourcing house) handling the message. (3) All valid messages from this entity are signed, and SHOULD have a valid signature from this entity. Third-party signatures SHOULD not be accepted. 4) Signing policy for this domain is expressed at the individual address level. A second Sender Signing Policy Check should be performed specifying the individual address (5) This Domain does not send messages/This domain only signs third party messages (6) yer sister resembles a goat
Policy assertion 5 and 6 harm no one, please some and voting is something you do repeatedly to get the result you want. Some here assert that policy assertion 5 can be done elsewhere. I was under the assumption that SSP sender's signing policy was to be complete. If I cannot assert that I sign but never send, the SSP is not complete. Thanks, Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications 404-847-6397 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 9:46 AM To: Stephen Farrell Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out ofscope. Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hector, > > Tomorrow I'll dig through the archive and find the reference > for where we agreed that the "nomail" requirement text that was > previously in the ssp-reqs draft would be excised. > > If someone in an earlier TZ wants to do that in the meantime, > you'll have my thanks, No volunteers eh;-) So I went back in time and found: Issue 1365 [1] included a mention that we could/shoud delete the "never send mail" item. That was raised by Eric on the list [2] in February and dicussed at length. Following that discussion I started a strawpoll [3] that resulted in a 2:1 ratio [4] in favour of deprecating the feature in SSP. That's all nice and clear so "nomail" is out of scope, as the WG agreed, even if not overwhelmingly. It seems like all of the people who wanted to keep the feature then still do, and I've not noticed anyone changing their mind. So, there's no reason to reopen this that I can see. So let's be grown-ups and move on, Stephen. [1] https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1365 [2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007139.html [3] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007185.html [4] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007254.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