"Michael Thomas" <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 02/24/2010 12:28 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
I spoke recently to someone which I think will join this group soon.
But basically his idea of being alerted of a broken signature was also to
catch people who are trying to fake the DKIM signature, and see the extent
of it.
Faking DKIM signatures shouldn't help *anybody*. If there's any incentive to
make a fake DKIM signature by bad guys, somebody's software is horribly broken.
Also personally, I think the sender is more motivated to fix a broken DKIM
signature than the receiver.
Sure, but I think the question here is whether a huge hose of ARF reports from
potentially unknown and not very trustworthy sources is the right way to go
about
sniffing out forwarding oddities, etc.
I guess a lot of my uncomfort here is that abuse reporting could end up being
its own abuse vector as well as something that take on a life of its own. The
potential volume of traffic could be very large versus the benefit of... what?
It seems to me that the problem space for this should be extremely constrained
to solve a minimal set of very explicit existing problems, and not feature
creep beyond that. WRT DKIM, I'm not sure what that problem set is.
Well said. Much better than the reply I'd started drafting.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html