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

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

>John L wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm trying to think about what I'll do when DKIM is in wide use, I get
>>mail from thousands of sources that publish SSP info.  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.  I REALLY do not want an SSP that says "I sign
>>everything, and here is my estimate on a 0 to 10 scale of how much you
>>should care."
>>    
>>
>
>
>Right.   SSP stands a much greater chance of being useful if it a) answers
>questions we believe the receivers will want to have answered, and b) the
>questions pertain to *simple* statements about signer/sender behaviors.
>
>Certainly this kind of minimal model is essential for initial adoption and use.
>  
>
What I have yet to hear is any sort of consituency for a monolithic
"i sign everything" beyond the statements@bigbank scenario. I really
don't buy John's small lawfirm scenario unless he can swear that none
of their users or correspondents use Yahoogroups; nobody is going to
tolerate the false positives except for a narrow class of transactional
mail. As such SSP would be extremely narrow and unuseful for the vast email
population to the point of being: why bother?

In any case, I already outlined a scenario for which a receiver would
find the additional information very interesting.

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