Dave Crocker:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >>> 1521 Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages new dkim
> >>> Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0
> >>
> >>> Proposal: REJECT, but some wording changes may be needed for the next
> >>> rev, thread is [4] I mainly saw opposition to the change suggested in
> >>> the issue, and little support, but some text clarifying changes were
> >>> suggested (e.g. [5]). [4]
> >>> http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008424.html [5]
> >>> http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008467.html
> >
> >> Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic got
> >> sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
> >
> > See above "I mainly saw..."
>
> Summary of proposal:
>
> > All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message
> > needs to be removed.
I would take this further: remove all text that says when to apply
SSP. Instead, provide text that states the contribution that SSP
can make under different conditions: mail with valid first-party
signature, mail with valid third-party signature, and mail without
valid signature.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
