Mark Delany wrote: > On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:01 PM, J D Falk wrote: > >> Jon Callas wrote: >> >>> I offer as a suggestion that we issue an SSP document that describes >>> only the basic broken-signature-only model of SSP with only the one >>> policy (sign-all). After that, we look at enhancements to the model >>> carefully. We seriously discuss whether they are outside the charter >>> because of the effect it has on the global email infrastructure to >>> turn DKIM from an opt-in protocol to a you-must protocol. We also >>> seriously have to look at other policies to discuss their >>> effectiveness along with their environmental effects. >> >> +1 >> >> This will let us experiment and learn through real-world operational >> experience, rather than continually rehashing the same arguments. > > Plus One. I'm inclined to this approach if we can't reconcile the > differences that appear to have stalled SSP progress. > > Is there a common subset of SSP that most everyone agrees on?
I thought we had documented it in RFC 5016. (in other words: -1 to above approach) -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
