On Friday 07 December 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: > On Dec 7, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Friday 07 December 2007 10:55, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> Michael Thomas wrote: > >>>> That mail abuse is such an extreme problem is probably the only > >>>> reason > >>>> we would consider such a mechanism, but we need to be careful > >>>> that we do > >>>> not use it to entirely disenfranchise possibly legitimate mail > >>>> senders. > >>> > >>> I assume you know what the meaning of "disenfranchise" is as you've > >>> chosen to use it twice now. A legitimate user of my domain name is > >>> exactly who I say is legitimate. There is no vote to be had on that > >>> issue, and as such no vote to be taken away. Do you seriously > >>> dispute > >>> that? > >> > >> Your perspective asserts certainties that we already know do not > >> apply. > >> > >> My point is exactly that SSP will be operating in a context of > >> significant > >> uncertainty, yet it's design model really assumes differently. > > > > I guess that's a yes. > > > > If you believe that any random MTA has an equal right to emit mail > > claiming to > > be from my domain, then I think there's little left to discuss. > > If you don't want people to forward your mail, then you're not obliged > to send mail to them. > > If, on the other hand, you want to participate in a store-and-forward > protocol then you don't get to say that other hosts are not allowed to > emit mail claiming to be from your domain. > And that's also orthogonal to my point. That would be an argument against SPF, but not SSP. If my mail is transparently forwarded (without modification) then SSP presents no obstacle to store and forward. If someone changes my message, then it's no longer my message. The fact that DKIM signature break when messages are modified is a feature.
Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
