Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy

[Arvel Hathcock <[e-mail]>]

 > It's true, I don't, and I've been trying to figure out why not.  It
 > finally came to me: senders are not the right people to judge their
 > own importance.

In my view, SSP is not a "judgement of one's own importance".  It's 
simply an advertisement to others through which some assessment of 
authenticity might be usefully gleaned and potentially used.  I see 
nothing self-absorbed or arrogant in providing that advertisement.  To 
the contrary, I see it as useful to the email community at large.

 > When I think of SSP records saying dump mail if it's not signed, I see
 > a bunch of tiny gorillas*, beating their teensy chests and saying in
 > high squeaky voices, "Beware, oh Internet, of the Scourge of Criminals
 >  attempting to forge the image of my Inestimable Personage, and do not
 > DARE to be fooled by these Base Mockeries of Communication!"

First, SSP doesn't say "dump mail if it's not signed" -- that might be 
an outcome but that's up to the receiver and needn't be an SSP mandate. 
  Second, if one ignores the irrelevance of words like "teensy" and 
"high squeaky voices" etc it becomes apparent that every gorilla 
(regardless of size) has the right (and duty) to protect his domain from 
abuse as far as possible.

-- 
Arvel



_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html