Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary
2006-01-28 15:58:36
On Jan 27, 2006, at 2:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
Associating the signature with the signing host (or listname(_at_)host)
is what I expect a mailing list would do. But the reputation
decision is required to really know that it's a list. It's not
sufficient to see a list-id or any other header field to know its
role.
I don't understand why you need to know it's a list. If phoo.com
has a good reputation, why does it matter whether it's signing list
mail or individual love letters?
A DKIM signing-domain may not prove suitable for white-listing when
replay abuse can not be controlled adequately. There is no means to
vet individuals for low cost or free services. Perhaps the DKIM
signing-domain may be limited to block-listing. As such, DKIM will
offer little acceptance value as bad actors might not sign their
messages or stage abusive message replays when their messages are
signed.
There could still be value obtained by DKIM as an indication of the
message source, simply to prevent spoofing. Assume there is a next
generation MUA or mail-filter. You may wish to have messages marked
when the source for a particular entity has been confirmed. At the
same time, you may also wish to be alerted when there appears to be a
spoof of that message. Perhaps this would allow you to update the
registry that contains sources of important correspondents. By
allowing the signer to purport their role, these messages would not
be marked as being a valid source for these important messages
(unless these sources were also registered) and thus would not create
false conflict alerts.
Anyway, on my system the lists all live in separate subdomains to
make them easier to manage, the signature would likely be in its
own domain separate from the one that love letters use anyway, so
if the lists were notably better or worse than the individual
messages, they'd have a separate reputation domain anyway.
This may be true for this case, but it would not always be true.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, Jim Fenton
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, william(at)elan.net
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary,
Douglas Otis <=
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, John Levine
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary, SSP again, Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, Michael Thomas
- [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Misleading figure in 1.1 (was: Attempted summary, SSP again), Frank Ellermann
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, Michael Thomas
|
|
|