dkim-ops
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [dkim-ops] Q: "dkim=discardable"

2008-10-30 19:09:15

On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:59 AM, John R Levine wrote:

There's a huge difference, to me at least, between "throw our mail  
away if you have the least doubt about it" (which you said above)  
and "our mail isn't very important" (which you said earlier in this  
thread).  One is technically precise, one is an inferred value  
judgement.

Why would you tell people to throw important mail away?  Really,  
this is a fundamental concept of ADSP that people have incredible  
trouble wrapping their heads around.  Discardable == not very  
important.

John,

ADSP applies to all messages from the domain. The "discardable"  
assertion can not be used to determine which messages from the domain  
are important or unimportant.  No institution would want to assert  
that all their messages are unimportant.

An ADSP assertion must be seen as a suggestion as to how a message  
with an invalid signature should be handled.  The term "dismissible"  
would have been safer, since it would not be confused with discarding  
the message, instead of refusing the message.

A bank sending out their messages will surely want to know whether  
something is amiss with their DKIM signature.  If everyone adopted the  
practice of discarding all "discardable" domain's messages that lack  
valid DKIM signatures, a problem will be difficult to detect.

In practice, the useful scenarios for discardable mail that I can  
see all boil down to "something happened so go look at the usual web  
site."  If the mail gets lost, it can be sent again because the  
important stuff is locked up on an SSL web site, usually with  
passwords.

Information will not be sent again, because it is likely the message  
was silently discarded.  If a message is refused, and the message is  
important, the bank could all the recipient instead.  In any case,  
email is likely to act as a means to notify individuals without  
sensitive information being included.  Nevertheless, if the notice is  
about an overdraft or a problem with an auto-payment to an insurance  
company, then anything that increases the odds of "important"  
notifications being silently dropped is evil.  Discard is terminology  
used by Sendmail and RFC 5321 to mean the silent loss of  
information.   The SSP draft fails to clarify that "discardable" does  
not really mean discardable.  To avoid this situation, the term  
"dismissible" as well as "locked" was suggested.

John, you are able to wrap your head around the concerns and the  
resulting confusion.  With other aspects of this draft being so damn  
destructive, this seems to be a type of sabotage.  With so little  
safely accomplished with this record, it is hard to see how this  
mechanism will ever become a general practice.

-Doug 
  
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops