ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required

2006-11-23 12:53:07
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:05:36 -0000, Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:

I don't understand why we, now, need to care about other
uses of the 2822-From address? (And if we did, then why news and
not, say kerberos, where the same string may occur.)

Because news and email regularly get gatewayed into each other.

Suppose foo.example announces that it "signs everything" (presumably we intend that to mean all emails). So if joe(_at_)foo(_dot_)example sends an unsigned email, it is sure to be treated with "suspicion".

But what if joe(_at_)foo(_dot_)example posts an article to some newsgroup? DKIM in Usenet might be found to be a good idea someday, but it is not likely to be in our drafts and is not in our charter. So, although they would do no harm, we are not expecting such signatures on Usenet. But things leak, and his article might turn up as an email (probably on some mailing list). We don't want the mailing list admin to reject is as being unsigned. Maybe the gateway should have signed it (quite a good edea that, and then the SSP and reputation of the gateway would come into play). But is that sufficient to cover for the lack of a signature by foo.example?

And maybe (USEFOR hat on here) gateways from news to email ought to be adding suitable Resent-* headers.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131     Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

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