ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus point on ADSP

2009-03-30 06:53:10
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:09:29 -0000, Jim Fenton <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 
wrote:


2. It has been noted that a domain might have different reasons for
signing a message.  It might, for example, sign a message on behalf of a
mailing list manager operating in that domain.  When Author Signature is
based on a d= comparison alone, any signature from the same domain as
the author is assumed to be a signature representing the original
introduction of the message into the mail stream.  That may or may not
be an important distinction, but I'm pointing out that information is
lost and I'm not sure we have enough experience to say that we don't
need it.

I don't think that is quite right. Suppose foo.example has declared that  
it signs everything, with strength "Discardable". Then four possibilities  
arise:

From: someone(_at_)foo(_dot_)example            
From:someone(_at_)foo(_dot_)example
Valid signature from foo.example     Absent/broken signature from  
foo.example
       ACCEPT                               DISCARD

 From someone(_at_)bar(_dot_)example             From 
someone(_at_)bar(_dot_)example
Valid signature from foo.example     Absent/broken signature from  
foo.example
       ???????                              ????????

The first two cases are obvious. The second two are Jim's example. What to  
do?

I think he misunderstands the meaning of "Discardable". It does not mean  
"Everything we sign if From: us". It means "Everthing From: us is signed  
by us".

So, in the second two cases, the semantics already prescribed by ADSP is:

Assuming there is no second signature by bar.example, LOOK UP the ADSP  
record for _bar.example_, and if that says "Discardable" then DISCARD it.

IOW, if some user at a Discardable domain sends email to a list, it had  
better be signed before it reaches the list, and the list expander had  
better not break that signature.

But if the Discardable domain operates a list expander for a list that  
anyone may post to, then it will naturally sign the expanded messages (and  
it would be polite to add i=lists(_at_)foo(_dot_)example), but there is no  
implication that anything should or should not be Discarded (though  
perhaps Assessors might possibly do so if Sender: was not by that domain -  
list expanders being supposed to set Sender).

In the words of Dave Crocker,
OK.  Start shooting.

FX: Bang!

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html