RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment

[John L <[e-mail]>]

> One would assume that an additional signing algorithm has been introduced and not using the TOM SWIFTY algorithm I would refer to base and treat your message as unsigned.

Who said anything about signing algorithms?  You know it's really from me 
because there's a lame Tom Swifty at the end of each message. 
Determining the operation utility of this advice or lack thereof is left 
as an exercise.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] on behalf of John L
> Sent: Fri 8/4/2006 2:05 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment
>
> a) "SIGN ALL MAIL" and "DO NOT USE ANY SERVICES KNOWN TO DAMAGE THEIR SIGNATURES"
>
> b) "SIGN ALL MAIL"
>
> I want to put "ALL MAIL HAS TOM SWIFTIES" in my SSP.
>
> Assuming you agree that's ridiculous, what's the practical difference to
> people using SSP between that and b) above?
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], 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

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], 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