On 10/27/2005 05:49 pm, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Doug,
> >
> > So is it your view that DKIM roughly at it stands, with SSP and
> > without your
> > "Opaque identifier" is fatally flawed and shouldn't go forward?
>
> SSP, as it is currently define
Doug,
My, my, but aren't we having fun consuming list bandwidth?
SSP, as it is currently defined, will cause a reduction in the integrity
of email delivery which, before this strategy, managed in spite of
inordinate abuse. This policy placed exclusively on the From header
will eventually c
On Oct 27, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Doug,
So is it your view that DKIM roughly at it stands, with SSP and
without your
"Opaque identifier" is fatally flawed and shouldn't go forward?
SSP, as it is currently defined, will cause a reduction in the
integrity of email delive
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Kitterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Should DKIM drop SSP?
> Doug,
>
> So is it your view that DKIM roughly at it stands, with SSP and without
your
> &q
Doug,
So is it your view that DKIM roughly at it stands, with SSP and without your
"Opaque identifier" is fatally flawed and shouldn't go forward?
Scott K
___
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
On Oct 26, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
Can you acknowledge the trade-off and defend this choice?
I'm more interested in your choice, DKIM without SSP. Your
vision is some kind of reputation system, e.g. you know that
N are good guys.
DKIM signatures
Douglas Otis wrote:
> Can you acknowledge the trade-off and defend this choice?
I'm more interested in your choice, DKIM without SSP. Your
vision is some kind of reputation system, e.g. you know that
N are good guys. Therefore you want to accept anything
that's really from N. If it com
