Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:00:11 -0600

> but the intent has always focused on the need for a
 > first party signature, not abhorance of multiple
 > signatures.

This was my understanding as well.  In fact, if there's a valid first 
party signature our lib doesn't even make an SSP check AFAIK so it 
wouldn't be able to determine policy relative to third party sigs.

-- 
Arvel

_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org