Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out of scope.

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> In many parts of the world there are folk throwing rocks at each other 
> or worse because they can't settle their differences. Why should that be
> a concern?

Spare me the rhetorical judo.

I think the PROMISING SSP and rather simple protocol has been hijacked 
with academic hogwash and now we got a rabid dog loose in the market 
running unprotected.
We need to get this solved pronto or risk DKIM-based becoming another 
DOMAINKEYS junk/bandwidth inducing generator systems - IGNORED.
You have not been very clear in your proposals or comments towards 
others, atleast not to me.  To me, you exhibited MIXED directions.
We have had lots of ideas here and many were well established feature 
list since day one and for the life in me, I don't quite understand why 
we are trying to CURE cancer when we can't!
In DSAP, I spelled it out very clear regarding some very fundamental 
security issues.
When a EMAIL comes in with a purported DKIM signature, there is a new 
level of security expectations with that transaction.  It is no longer 
an OLD LEGACY transaction.  The concept is akin to a client specifically 
using PORT 587 - when it does, there is a NEW LEVEL of LEGAL/AUTHORIZED 
expectations.   The server can do things that it can not on port 25.
If the domain did not send mail with that domain, a NO-MAIL will cover 
it.  If it signs everything, and it was not, a I ALWAYS SIGN covers 
that. If it doesn't sign mail and it was signed, then I NEVER SIGN 
covers that, etc. etc.   These are basic fundamental ideas.
Instead, we are lost in off-topic stuff, lack of expertise in DNS people 
telling us the best Lookup Methods and now we lost in the building of 
integrated product lines.  Come on, give me a break.  Lets get this 
thing finished.
Who is the DNS expert here?  Lets get the proper best idea and most 
practical method for lookup, recommend strategies, then lets over the 
syntax and get that completed.
Then we can begin voting on initial policies to offer.  But lets not get 
into stupid debates on whether a NO-MAIL POLICY is worthy or not.  Let 
the sysops decide if that it what they want or not.
--
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


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