IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John L <johnl@iecc.com> Fri, 04 August 2006 22:48 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G98TB-0006or-Ho for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:48:41 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G98T7-0002aL-42 for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:48:41 -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 k74MjLZj001644; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:45:21 -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 k74Mj0LG001601 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:45:01 -0700
Received: (qmail 7868 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2006 22:44:34 -0000
Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail2.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2006 22:44:34 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Aug 2006 22:44:34 -0000
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:44:34 -0400
From: John L <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
In-Reply-To: <44D3C8DB.4070101@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <20060804184321.L23892@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20060804173538.54245.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <44D3C0BB.9000405@mtcc.com> <20060804174955.N15734@simone.iecc.com> <44D3C8DB.4070101@mtcc.com>
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Songbird: Clean, Clean
Cc: 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: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f

> I cannot see how SSP can do anything but make false positives more 
> likely. The real question is whether the gain in eliminating harmful 
> mail is worth the occassional false positive. So if what you are saying 
> is true, law firms would be literally nuts to turn SSP "I sign 
> everything" on, and so I'm surprised to hear that you think they should.

At the moment, I agree with you.  Considering the value of the messages, 
I'm surprised we don't see more fake mail saying that a case has been 
dismissed or a hearing postponed.  If that happened, the answer might be 
different.

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