ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Another take on "all email from us is dkim signed"

2009-03-11 19:15:49
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:


It also seems that the number of domains who want this will likely be
a small fraction of the total number of domains, and likely a small
fraction of the number of emails sent.


That may be true today but may not be true tomorrow. 

Besides the fact you can't design a public protocol starting with a 
discrimination model, all must be applied using the same public 
protocol, same rules, whether its true or not, this may be exactly the 
segment of people who will benefit the most from DKIM+POLICY.

But even then, the BIGGER domains are also needing protection.

Gmail.com sends millions of messages per day now signed when you are 
on GMAIL.COM.

I can use the same gmail.com junk mail account across other sites and 
I do so very very loosly because I don't care - its a junk address.

So GMAIL.COM, in my view, as a public free service email model does 
not benefit with ADSP for their branded domain because its potential 
is high for a "Cry Wolf" effect - high potential for failure at 
receivers, hence receivers will have a tendency of ignoring it.

But there are people and companies that use Google Apps seriously and 
their gmail.com is important to them.

Now, there is another solution that the Google developer mindset might 
consider in the area of WEB SERVICES.   Each gmail user can have its 
own LOOKUP policy setting

     [X] I only use GMAIL Online to create mail. Never outside.

Now GOOGLE can publish a REST web server user DKIM lookup protocol 
that is not DNS based. The have tons of REST web service user lookup 
functions already so this one would be a simply addition.  This will 
allow receivers who get email from a  purported GMAIL.COM account to 
support what I would call:

      GUSP (GMail User Signing Policy) Protocol.

      http://gusp.gmail.com?user=xxxxxxxx

It can be done as a fast SMTP callout and the call response will be 
200 (GMAIL_ONLY) or (403) OPEN and certainly, the receiver can cache 
this for some TTL.

Now all receivers will be able to protect GMAIL.COM accounts, 
disseminate the junk spoofing that is rampant today for all these free 
ESP domains.

So get busy google and write that GUSP I-D! and get a leg up on their 
competitives!  Add value to GMAIL.COM commercial usage with DKIM/GUSP 
protection.

(Other information could be communicated in-band in the same way -
including "we're no longer dkim signing every email sent").

Why not include both options (trying to be flexible here)? If one looks
at Daves affilias proposal, some receivers might choose to check for
ADSP records against some arbitrary list of domains (all registered
financial institutions for example). 

No public standard protocol will work well if its done on a 
discriminatory basis.  Some group will be hurt by this way of 
designing a protocol and history has shown that when you intentional 
neglect something believe it will have a low impact, it is among the 
first things that is exploited.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com


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