IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

John L <johnl@iecc.com> Fri, 04 August 2006 18:04 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G942N-0002sT-68 for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:04:43 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G942L-0008GV-QS for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:04:43 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k74I4BWV027845; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:04:11 -0700
Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (xuxa.iecc.com [208.31.42.42]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id k74I3UkL027787 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:03:30 -0700
Received: (qmail 18105 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2006 18:03:04 -0000
Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail2.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2006 18:03:04 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Aug 2006 18:03:04 -0000
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:03:04 -0400
From: John L <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
In-Reply-To: <EAF17954-74A3-4374-A059-B31A1414B350@mail-abuse.org>
Message-ID: <20060804140232.H49810@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20060802002353.U59653@simone.iecc.com> <44D0E259.7040400@mtcc.com> <20060802165510.X1168@simone.iecc.com> <44D160BD.7080209@mtcc.com> <20060802223619.E86316@simone.iecc.com> <44D24A20.6050109@mtcc.com> <20060803153457.X33570@simone.iecc.com> <44D36203.2060803@mtcc.com> <20060804112731.I21459@simone.iecc.com> <44D36B4A.2050903@mtcc.com> <20060804114527.Y27352@simone.iecc.com> <44D37376.4020408@mtcc.com> <20060804132203.Y49810@simone.iecc.com> <EAF17954-74A3-4374-A059-B31A1414B350@mail-abuse.org>
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Songbird: Clean, Clean
Cc: DKIM List <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird-From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8

> "SIGN ALL MAIL" and "DO NOT USE ANY SERVICES KNOWN TO DAMAGE THEIR 
> SIGNATURES"
>
> Cisco may wish to only state:
>
> "SIGN ALL MAIL"
>
> The important difference is whether the assertion is _expected_ to cover all 
> possible sources carrying their messages.

The more important difference is that recipients can do something based on 
the first statement but not on the second.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email