Re: [ietf-dkim] requirements

On Jul 27, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:

> > 3) have the ability for the policy statement say that a provider 
> > (s) legitimately signs for that domain.
> The potential scaling problem with multiple providers in (3) is one  
> of my main concerns with this approach.  I have heard of  
> enterprises with upward of 100 authorized mailers, so this has real  
> potential to be an excessively long list.
For large enterprises, establishing formalized arrangements where  
either a zone is delegated or a private key and selector information  
is shared with trusted vendors will likely be a typical solution.   
For a vast number of mom and pop outfits, a list of providers  
offering their outbound services would likely never require anything  
more than a few names.  If mom and pop are also active on many  
mailing lists, they may also want to express their list as "open- 
ended" at this time.

> I have a somewhat less tangible concern, too.  If example.com  
> publishes an SSP record saying that some mail provider is an  
> authorized sender, and there is an abuse problem, will example.com  
> feel the same responsibility for the use of their address as if the  
> message had been signed directly "by" their domain?  They may not,  
> and I view any spreading of the responsibility to be undesirable.
Regardless of the OA, spam will reflect poorly upon the signing  
domain.  Reports of abuse and expectations of who will resolve an  
abuse issue  always falls to the signing domain.  There will not be  
any "spreading" of responsibility.  There is no means to know whether  
the OA is even valid!  The identity of the OA depends upon the  
assertion made by the signing domain.

> We have put in lots of mechanisms for domains to delegate signing  
> authority:  they can delegate individual keys, the entire  
> _domainkey zone, or a subdomain of that.  Mailing providers are  
> free to use the same keypair to sign for all of their customers, if  
> they want to assume that risk, and they only need to apply the  
> right domain name and selector when they sign.  Is that really a  
> big burden?
Yes.  For a mom and pop outfit depending upon their ISP for outbound  
mail service, setting up DKIM signing or zone delegations would be a  
big burden.  The support required to handle key or zone arrangements  
would be an increased expense that might impeded DKIM adoption.   
Setting up a static DSD list should be much less effort.  The DSD  
should also represent a significantly lower burden for smaller  
outfits.  They should still obtain improved annotations and be  
affording added protections when their list is closed.  If there is a  
problem, mom and pop would then know where to complain, their  
provider.  They can always find a new provider as well.
-Doug

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