ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility

2006-04-14 06:04:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>

Unless it has help from the backend server, offline mail systems
will not work very reliably when keys are being changed.

Should DKIM require services beyond DNS for verification?

Is this a trick question? :-)

In contexts of the offline MUA, for it to work reliably, I would think it
will need from feedback from the work done in the backend (ISP, ESP, Mail
Host).

Otherwise, how would get your Offline Mail Reader to work correctly with
DKIM when you have the problem of unknown key revocation?

The only way I see to reduced this is to increase the frequency of
your pickup times so that is closer to real time.  At pickup, the
DKIM plug-ins do their work.  So even if you are away on vacation,
your computer is still on and doing its mail pickup.

Access to email can occur at fairly slow rates.  A delay due to a
short vacation suggests typical transit times may easily span several
weeks.  Not every MUA is continuously on-line.

Agree. The point was, with today's software, the current DKIM specs, fixing
or at least reducing the problem, would be to make it do higher frequency
pickups.

I don't see any other solution for the person who wants to use DKIM with his
offline mail reader and isn't getting any help from this host.  Do you?  How
will you pull this rabbit out of the hat without having a higher frequency
pickup?

What would be the "recommended frequency" for the DKIM ready MUA?

Is this information that should be added to DKIM-BASE?  Maybe. But then I
will have to stop telling some of some of my users to top polling our pop
server every freaking minute! <g>

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>