How about:
"I sign all email, and respectfully suggest that the risk of harm due to
accepting unsigned email is greater than the risk of deleting all email
transported through any body or signature altering gateways that cannot be
otherwise authenticated"
I don't see mail forwarders as a real problem here. A mail forwarder
relationship is by consent of the recipient or the mail should be tossed
anyway. Since it is by consent of the recipient the mail forwarder is logically
a part of the recipient mail infrastructure and the whole 'problem' of modified
messages is irrelevant.
Again: we are building a spring here, not a mousetrap.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen
Farrell
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:11 PM
To: Thomas A. Fine
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists
Hi Thomas,
This isn't really directed at you, but I've wondered each
time someone has said something like:
Thomas A. Fine wrote:
"I sign all email, and do NOT permit email through any body or
signature altering gateways"
I've no idea how a sending domain could enforce the "do NOT permit"
there. Neither in practice, nor in principle. Does anyone?
(This may just be my own ignorance of course, I don't claim
to be a mail
expert.)
If its unenforceable, then I don't see why anyone would
bother making the statement.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html