ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy

2006-08-05 16:57:31

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Levine" <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy


"I sign all": Your users and my business may be harmed by accepting
unverified mail claiming to originate from my domain. It is in our
mutual interest for you to not deliver such mail to your users.

I am an adult of voting age and accept the possibility that
deliverability of my traffic may reduce as a consequence.

If "I sign all" means anything at all, this is what it means.


That is what it meant since day one. There was absolutely no FOG in that
view because Local policy always dictate what's acceptable or not.  But if
its gets a domain hint for what was expected or not expected, rest assured
it will be subject to rejection with no qualms about it.

As it is now, we have to accept the PAYLOAD failure and let the user decide
if its BAD or GOOD.  What's change?

The problem?

This is the bad guys' cat's meow! Fake it to you make it, random unsolicited
attacks based on an unprotected DKIM "ignore failure" methodology.

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





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