On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:05:38 +0100, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Not really, since it was known from the start that survival through an
MLM is
highly problematic and the steps towards helping survival were known to
be quite
limited.
Nevertheless, there IS a solution that MLMs can use which will ensure
survival through an MLM. Yes, it has a few downsides, but then so do all
the other "solutions" suggested. Someone (the MLM for this particular
case) has to evaluate the tradeoffs. If it is likely to be suitable for
.some. MLMs, then it ought to be included in Murray's arsenal of possible
mitigations.
Requiring survival is a change in DKIM's goals, as well as raising a
massive
barrier to adoption, given the history of a) challenge in adoption for
any
infrastructure sequence, and b) resistance by MLM developers and
operators.
Indeed. We will not REQUIRE survival, but some MLMs might like to provide
it. A resistant MLM may suddenly find his list is not working as intended,
due to discarding of mis-signed messages. We can't force him to drink our
water; we cannot even lead him to it; but at least we should point out
where it is.
--
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