DKIM is extremely helpful for this scenario
because the negative reputation that you have assigned to my identity
(errr... domain) can now be reliably and accurately applied.
You could not do that so safely in the past.
The threat analysis characterizes the bad acts as the spoofing of email
addresses.
I absolutely agree that DKIM is helpful in allowing you to reliably
apply a reputation that you maintain. This is discussed in the second
paragraph of section 1 of the threat analysis. I am simply saying that
DKIM doesn't say anything about how the reputation is maintained and
applied.
Different issue.
Yes I certainly agree with you statement about reputation.
In fact, I think DKIM documents should simply and directly say
something like: DKIM validates the use of an identity. A validated
identity has a number of uses, including as the referential basis for
developing a reputation information service. However identity
validation is merely input to the creation of such a service, rather
than having any reputation-related semantics of its own.
Well, maybe that wasn't as simple as it could be...
In any event, I was commenting on the cited statement, which the
threats document does focus on.
My point is that this obnoxious Dave Crocker that you do not want to
receive mail from qualifies as a Bad Actor, but no spoofing is
involved.
We do lose sight of some of the benefits when
we focus on spoofing, but the threat analysis is focused on what the
bad acts are that we're preventing (or trying to prevent) rather than
the good things we're trying to do.
see my above phrasing. my entire intent is to claim that there is a
bad actor who is not particularly related to spoofing, but is highly
relevant to dkim benefits.
d/