On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:46:10 -0000, Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
Agreed. DKIM can be employed in conjunction with _many_ transport
protocols. While a domain may assert they sign "all" their SMTP
traffic, they may not be signing other types of traffic that could
potentially use DKIM signature headers. How would a domain indicate
what protocol they cover by their assertion? It seems logical to
restrict the _SSP policy to that of SMTP. Other protocols can define
where the relevant policy can be found, or they could add a protocol
policy scope to the record.
If you want to indicate that information, then propose a new tag within
the SSP record for the purpose. But the default should be that the SSP
applies to all modes of transport. Otherwise the Bad Guys will just send
mail like the following:
Received: by bar.com from foo.com by SMTP ...
Received: by foo.com from ebay.com by UUCP ...
[NO DKIM signature]
And the verifier would note (after a lot of trouble) that the message
originator sent it by UUCP, and hence the absence of a Signature was to be
expected, in spite of the ferociously strict policy bublished by ebay.
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to