Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:32:42 -0500
From: johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com
To: lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first
Author
CC: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Actually, all I was going to suggest was that if SSP purports to manage
addresses on the From: line, it should manage all of them rather than
arbitrarily giving N-1 of them a free pass.
+1 I think in the case of multiple From: addresses only checking one, or only
checking the one that matches the sender seems to arbitrarily ignore the policy
of other domains appearing in that header. As long as the document suggests a
limit on how many checks to do I think John's approach makes the most sense to
me.
because simply SOMEONE taking responsibility for the message mandates
the need to establish reputation of that someone
Indeed. Does this mean you agree that SSP only applies to unsigned
messages? (Actual non-rhetorical question.)
I would agree here, except for one consideration. It makes it possible to
trivially bypass someone's policy by inserting a completely bogus signature in
all messages claiming to be from them. If anyone has a good suggestion for how
to tell the difference between a signature broken in transit and one
just made up out of nothing or copied from a different valid message apart
from keeping a list of known mailing lists and forwarders who change message
content, I'd be willing to change my mind.
- Robert
R's,
John
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html