Subject: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: ssp should not link "all" and third parties

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:55:41 -0700

In section 3, bullet two it says:

   2.  All messages from this domain are signed.  Messages containing a
       Verifier Acceptable Third-Party Signature MUST NOT be considered
       Suspicious.

IMO, this inappropriately links the existence of a third party signature to
the "all" signing practice. This is incorrect on several levels. First, 
saying
that you sign all of your mail is just a statement of fact; there is no 
need to
drag in the entire concept of third party signatures to make this fact an
interesting one. Second,  I find no utility in the *sender** telling me that
a valid third party signature is required. Why is that even interesting? 
What
would a receiver do differently? I can't think of anything. "All" by itself
is useful to receivers as they can use that as weaker indictment against an
unsigned message as input, say, to a spam filter.

My suggestion is to remove this linkage, and most preferable would be to
remove any notion of third party signatures altogether except maybe as a 
vehicle
to explain what a first party signature is.

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