ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible

2006-08-01 10:55:42


Hector Santos wrote:
I suggest a new requirement:

- SSP must offer Highest Protection possible for Responsible
  Originating domains (High Value or not) who desire 100%
  exclusivity in their mail digital signatures which includes

    - no expectation for tampering, and
    - no expectation for 3rd party signatures, and
    - an expectation that verifiers will follow
      and honor this policy.

Even if one feels "it probably won't be used", there is no evidence
that it won't, therefore, the highest protection possible for
a mail digital signature must be made available, not excluded as a
possibility for usage.

"highest protection" (with or without caps:-) is a simple assertion
that there is a benefit.

I still don't see what that benefit is. What message (that should) gets
delivered that wouldn't otherwise, or gets dropped (that should)
that would otherwise get through?

Sorry for being dumb about this, but I just don't see the benefit,
and I do see potential for at least accidental DoS when someone tries
to help by countersigning.

S.

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