Arvel Hathcock wrote: > > The SSP specification needs to be modified to remove all directions > > for recipient actions, instead limiting itself to statements about the > > actions of a potential signer. > > This is a manifestation of the thinking that providing guidance to a > receiver about what you might like to see happen is a violation of > some Internet taboo. I just don't see a problem here.
I'd have to agree. I thought the point of SSP was for the sender to provide the receiver on guidance on what it would like done with messages that are believed to be inauthentic. While I understand Dave's concern about organizations communicating policy, if this is a start, so be it. It's very constrained. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
