On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:21:54AM -0400, Barry Leiba allegedly wrote:
I argue that "sensitive transactions" are not what DKIM is about. If
one wants to protect sensitive transactions, one should use S/MIME or
OpenPGP.
I'm not sure what term to use - "sensitive" seems insufficient - but
clearly there is a class of email that DKIM is well suited to
protecting. Bank statements, utility bills, auction notifications, are
not amenable to S/MIME but are so to DKIM. We need a term for these,
er, invariant-important mails.
That said, I wouldn't object to an additional, strict signing policy
that lists headers and asserts that they must match. I think it'd be
rather nice to say, "Only consider a message validly signed by us if
the signature verifies AND ALL of the following SMTP and header fields
represent our domain: HELO, MAIL-FROM, From, Sender, Reply-To [...]."
What do others think of this?
If a signer has to opt-in headers, the problem is that they don't
necessarily know all headers significant to a recipient or their
MUA. To be safe, a signer needs to be able to exclude any additions.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org