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

[John L <[e-mail]>]

>> If SSP says "I sign everything" I have trouble figuring a use for it 
>> other than a flat reject of unsigned messages or at least 4.9 points in 
>> a five point scoring spam filter.

> That's the problem: if you do that, domains like Cisco -- or anybody else
> who uses mailing lists -- will *never* publish a "we sign everything" policy
> even though we do.

And that's a problem because ... ?  There are all sorts of true statements 
that you can make about your outgoing mail, almost none of which are of 
any use to anyone else.  This appears to be one of them.

> 0: "mail from this domain may transit manglers, adjust accordingly"

That's not a bit, that's a fact of life.  None of us have any idea what 
paths our mail might take on its way through the mail morass.

> 1: "the signature should always be intact"

That's someone people could use operationally -- a suggestion to discard 
unsigned mail from you.

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