ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] #1398

2007-03-02 08:42:45
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Are you proposing to put this list in the policy record or the key record?

I am prepared to think about whether it is necessary in the key record or not. 
It does not in my view belong in the policy record.

It would need linked through the policy record to satisfy Frank's issue,
I think. Otherwise, if I got a message without a signature for the
Sender, say, I wouldn't know that that was abnormal unless I did
an SSP lookup. The selector wouldn't work since you don't have
a selector to look up.

      Mike
The way to express any policy more complex than 'I always sign' is to put all 
the complexity into the key record and to provide a means of specifying a 
restriction set on the key records as in the proposed 1368 mechanism.

Otherwise you would end up with complexity in both the key record and the policy record. You have to have the information in the key record as well because a key record is implicitly a statement 'this is one way in which I might sign'.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:56 PM
To: Frank Ellermann
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] #1398

Frank Ellermann wrote:
nothing prevents you from doing an SSP lookup on any address or domain that you desire, so at some level you are accommodated.
No, it's not obvious what it means if the 2822-From domain
claims to
sign all mails, and the Resent-From domain makes no statement.
In my implementation I can (and do) sign for a configurable set of addresses including From, Sender, Listid, etc. SSP has the concept of "I sign everything" which right now is implicitly the From address. What I'm wondering is whether we should make that binding more explicit even if we ultimately only choose From, and make it an extensible list sort of like:

p=sign-complete:From;

Perhaps now, perhaps in the future we could extent that to be something like:

p=sign-complete:From:Sender:Listid;

Which I'm pretty sure addresses your issue directly.


       Mike
_______________________________________________
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

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