--On 13 October 2009 00:49:05 -0400 hector
<gmail(_dot_)sant9442(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
wrote:
John Levine wrote:
[ this is well trodden ground, so I will try and keep this short ]
Agreed, but the fact that it's a mailing list that is doing this
isn't significant. It could be any intermediary that is willing to
take responsibility for the message by signing it. Their reputation
now becomes a factor in the disposition of the message.
Right. As JD and others have often pointed out, mailing lists should
sign their mail like anyone else, and recipients handle it based on
the list's reputation. If we're going to encourage list operators to
change their software to deal with DKIM, sensible changes would help
them be sure that unwanted mail doesn't leak onto the list, perhaps
using DKIM and ancillary reputation systems. That will help all
subscribers getting mail from the list, whether they use DKIM or not.
So what you are saying is that LIST SERVER developers SHOULD NOT add
ADSP features to restrict signing of ADSP domain nor bother to see if
it should allow these restrictive domains to subscribe?
They should add features. But "DISCARDABLE" ('discard' isn't a value, and
'discardable' doesn't mean 'discard'), should not be treated the same as
"ALL". It's reasonable for a list to rejected mail that it is about to
render discardable, but there's no reason to reject mail with "ALL".
Remember RFC5617 says " 3.2 ... o If a message has a Valid Signature other
than an Author Domain
Signature, the receiver can use both the Signature and the ADSP
result in its evaluation of the message."
List name: ieft-dkim
DKIM/ADSP Options:
[_] Do not allow subscription from ADSP domains
[_] Do not accept domains with DISCARD, ALL policies
[X] Sign list mail:
[X] Remove any old signatures
Signing Selector: k00001
Signing domain : mipassog.org [ GENERATE KEY ]
[X] Checking Reputation Services
[ CLICK TO SEE REPUTATION SERVICE LIST ] None-Defined
A few milliseconds of thought should reveal that a scheme that allowed
a list to assert that incoming mail was signed would instantly be
abused by spammers who would start sending from "lists" that claimed
to be passing through signed mail from domains with good reputations.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html