Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments

[Damon <[e-mail]>]

On 9/5/06, Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> > As Doug said that predates the WG.
>
> The WG charter says "policy" (incl. the quotes) and mentions
> draft-allman-dkim-ssp
>
> > once reqs-01 is out. we're planning to move back into
> > using the issue tracker, so you can of course raise this
> > as an issue if you like
>
> Yes.  I fear the SSP adventure is over, PRA is bad, anything
> else is impossible.  On the SPF lists folks tried for years
> to invent wild and wonderful new "identities" in addition to
> the Return-Path, and they all failed miserably, incompatible
> with 2822, only PRA makes remotely sense.
>
> This "first address of the From" can't work.  Maybe you could
> get the RFC 2822 author as external expert about this idea,
> IIRC he was also invited to comment on some MARID proposals.
>
> Frank
>

Only because people insist that it *must* work in every scheme they can make up.
I believe that we could implement what we have discussed and the fact
that it won't work for everybody should be an asterisk. It will work
for most systems and I am comfortable with that. Implementation is not
a requirement.


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