>> There'll surely be more of these 1:1 agreements, while we wait for SSP >> to become useful. If we wait long enough, SSP won't even be necessary >> for the big, high-value signers & verifiers. >> > >Agreed. It's much better to define a protocol to do this now so the process >scales and is not just available to large commercial senders.
But the key step in setting up the 1:1 agreements is for the receiver to identify a sender which is enough of a forgery target to be worth special treatment. How does an SSP-like protocol do that? Assertions like "I am a phish target" don't do it. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
