ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM signature can mean it's safe to generate bounce?

2007-07-06 18:20:55

On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

Steve Atkins wrote:

If the mail is sent by dick(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net (or a virus on their machine), with an envelope from address of jane(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net out through the DKIM stamping earthlink smarthost and you generate a bounce, that bounce will go to Jane.

Sure, but at least it's reduced to an intra-domain problem which earthlink has the capacity to remedy.

Unless Earthlink uses per-user keys, Earthlink will need to wait for the signature to expire. Even the costly step of invalidating per- user-keys is not likely to be effective at dealing with a replay problem. Messages can come from any number of compromised systems within their network. Nothing within DKIM offers Earthlink the "capacity" to safely deal with a replay problem.

TPA-SSP offers a means for recipients of Earthlink messages to better cope with a possible replay problem. When a domain signing a message has been "authorized" as "strict", the "authorized" domain should also normally administer the SMTP client transmitting the message to a public server. By limiting the cases of possible replay abuse, this containment provides the capacity to better deal with possible replay problem without resorting to per-user keys.

-Doug


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

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