Douglas Otis wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > >> Douglas Otis wrote: >> >>> It would be safer and less work for policy scoping to list the >>> domain's supported protocols. >> >> Sorry, I just don't see how this will help nor see how it will be less >> work. I see more complexity with little benefit or value behind it. > > You many feel *SP is limited to transport protocols delivering messages > into SMTP related repositories, including messages bridged into SMTP. > In other words, *SP governs SMTP message compliance.
Well, I didn't say that. Practically speaking, DKIM is x822 and the design issue is not delivering messages, but how it was originally created, transmitted, gated, what have you. You wish to have protocol management on creation, transportation and transformations. What I said and I believe Charles also alluded to, it is very difficult to accurately determine with any high reliability how message were originally created or how they were transported and/or GATED all of which may be transparent operations. > This is not really that different from being able to determine whether > all messages have been signed. Only that it another more complex data point you have to reliably confirmed, and you won't be able to. You can't compare this to a straight forward SSP DNS lookup with a TRUE/FALSE explicit policy declaration which can be easily confirmed. IMO, you're asking a bit too much and practically speaking, not worth the effort. Besides, whats the point when the more important part of the policy question has been brushed aside by the poison pill ASP/SSP-02? -- Sincerely Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
