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

[Damon <[e-mail]>]

> >> "SIGN ALL MAIL"
> >>
> >
> > We _dont_ really really mean it.
>
> You and others seem to be having a big problem differentiating between
> signing and verifying. I can make a perfectly valid statement that I
> sign all of my mail. There is no guarantee that it will survive intact.
> Period. Once it's left my domain, I have no control of what intermediaries
> do. This is a fact of life, and no amount of glib dismissals or fanciful
> reinterpretations of that true statement says alters that.
>
>       Mike
>
Mike,

You are absolutely and positively correct and _that_ is my problem.
"Sign all mail" is a pipe dream (as you have stated) unless you have
utter control over where it goes and how it gets there. So what is the
point of saying "Sign All" unless you can and ensure it gets there
intact?
Which causes me to repeat myself... Treat everyone default as
"Sometimes Sign" and only set "Sign All" only if you really really
mean it - and are willing to deal with the consequences. Isn't that
what is really going to be happening anyway?

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