----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
In other words, to minimize RISK for SDP, you are requiring all
DOMAINS to subscribe the the DNA service or some SDP repository.
You keep bringing up DNA, but I can not see why.
Didn't you said that signature policy verification is a waste if REPUTATION
is not performed.
Ok, so forget DNA. It seems to me that what you are proposing is no
different than SSP. On one breath you seem to suggest there is some concept
of a POLICY (FROM or SIGNER or whoever) checker, but then in another breath
you say there isn't a checker, as in your example for the Broad Binding w=b.
This is about how to identify unique sources of email, and
to exclude non-complaint sources when there is an expressed
desire by the _affected_ domain.
And how do to a VERIFIER or SIGNER get this "exposed expressed desire?" How
does the VERIFIER and and possibly RESIGNER get this information?
Did I miss something?
I think so.
Then I'm sorry because you lost me. You presentation is hard to read,
verbose with predictions, unclear behavior, all sorts of dependency issues,
behavior recommendations. Its not concreate.
Can you itemize the "difference" in your DKIM modification?
Can you present this in pseudo-code?
Would it help if can start with Michael Thomas's DKIM algorithm?
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg01974.html
and use to starting point, customize it to illustrate your ideas without DNA
and CSA.
If you could do this, I will volunteer to code it, model it, create a
simulation and see if it has technical merit, as well see what kinds of
issues, if any, it has.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org