Hector,
The point of the message was to review the theory of operation that many
people have, and to demonstrate what I believe is in scope and not in
scope for DKIM SSP. It was not to dictate anything.
Eliot
Hector Santos wrote:
I have a major problem with your dictation of how our mail design
should be. I simply don't agree with your philosophy and we are
certainly not going to follow your suggestion, nor ALTER what we have
because of your opinions which to me, don't haven't been making sense
lately.
To me, IT IS ILLOGICAL to perform DKIM processing when there are
extremely obvious, contemporary, exploitive, abusive, directly related
ZERO FALSE POSITIVE CONDITIONS that can immediately invalidate it and
kick it out and stop wasting people's time with the idea of its good
or bad.
--
HLS
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I would wordmith slightly as follows:
- UNVERIFIED leads to a query to SSP. The results of the SSP query
along with the message leads to a value of CONSISTENT or
INCONSISTENT which together with the message will be fed to the
reputation service to produce a result of ACCEPT or REJECT.
I would also caution that we should avoid thinking in imperative
terms. If you have a large email processing infrastructure you are
going to be relying on multiple levels of spam control.
The first step in your spam control ladder is almost certainly going
to be some form of lookup on the IP address to decide whether or not
you will accept the inbound SMTP connection.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com] Sent: Friday, March 02,
2007 4:01 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Scott Kitterman; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re:
[ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)
Phillip,
To summarize some of this discussion, the chain of events is this:
- The VERIFIED address perhaps along with the message is used as
input to whatever reputation system there is. The reputation
service will return a value of ACCEPT or REJECT for each message.
- UNVERIFIED leads to a query to SSP. The results of the SSP query
along with the message will be fed to the reputation service to
produce a result of ACCEPT or REJECT.
It is out of scope for this working group to try and guess the
special sauce in the reputation service, as I understand it. The
only question this leads to is whether the unverified address is
valuable without a valid DKIM signature, and YMMV, especially in the
beginning (like now).
Eliot
_______________________________________________
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