> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:18:32 -0800
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to
> unsigned messages
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I've reviewed the thread that took place on this topic. Here are summary
> statistics:
>
> Total postings in thread: 46
>
> Number of different people posting: 14
>
> Apparent REJECT of proposal: 4
>
> Apparent ACCEPT of proposal: 5
>
>
> I would like to ask folks with an opinion about this proposal to post an
> explicit note stating support or opposition. Some of the existing posts were
> about substantive issues in the proposal, but did not clearly indicate
> support
> or opposition.
>
> Given that this issue goes to the core of a significant fraction of the
> current specification's functionality and given that there is at least an
> implied requirement for the functionality in the SSP requirements RFC, I'll
> ask folks to do both a +1/-1 *and* to explain their reasons.
>
> I also do not find a record in the archive of working group agreement to add
> the features in question. So an assumption that the features should be
> retained unless there is a rough consensus *against* is problematic. Citing
> the SSP requirements RFC is comforting, but questionable, absent any history
> of group discussion and clear rough consensus about the matter.
>
> d/
>
> --
>
-1 . I would like to see us remove any text that implies a decision about what
a receiver should do with that information, and maybe some text making it clear
that a receiver may decide on a message by message basis to completely skip SSP
processing for for reasons of local policy or because they have sufficient
information to make a decision without checking SSP (though it seems a little
odd for an RFC to say that when you are not doing X you don't need to worry
about how to properly do X). But I think there are a sufficient number of cases
where domain owners may want to make statements not just about mail that is not
signed, but about mail that is not signed by them.
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
