Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault
2010-09-15 10:09:02
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, McDowell, Brett
<bmcdowell(_at_)paypal-inc(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Based on that (rather precise) description, aren't ADSP's requirements a
proper subset of the DKIM requirements? If so, I'm not sure I agree with
"badly conflicting", but it does frame future discussion quite nicely.
For example, if DKIM enables the identification of mail streams, isn't the
one ADSP covers just a specific instance of a mail stream?
BTW, one thing I think we can agree on and find value from in these
pre-deployment email discussions is terminology. I ran into a problem at the
last MAAWG during a panel discussion where my understanding of "3rd-party
signature" is what someone else meant by "2nd-party signature". What is the
real definitions of "1st-party", "2nd-party" and "3rd-party" signatures in
the context of DKIM and ADSP, i.e. in the context of i= and d= and from:
values?
I believe only the ADSP documents talk about 3rd party, and it is
defined as d= not From Domain.
These are 3rd party:
DKIM-Sig: ... d=dkim.bar.com
From: foo(_at_)bar(_dot_)com
DKIM-Sig: ... d=beer.com
From: foo(_at_)bar(_dot_)com
I believe Patrick defined 2nd party to be:
DKIM-Sig: ... d=dkim.bar.com
From: foo(_at_)bar(_dot_)com
the maawg meeting was a first that I've heard that.
First party is of course:
DKIM-Sig: ... d=bar.com
From: foo(_at_)bar(_dot_)com
BUT I really thinking making such distinctions is the wrong approach.
It really doesn't matter what type of signature it is. I'd even
advocate for a DKIM update that would cause all signatures to be 2nd
or 3rd to enforce the point.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Rolf E. Sonneveld
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, McDowell, Brett
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, McDowell, Brett
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault,
Jeff Macdonald <=
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, McDowell, Brett
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Steve Atkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, McDowell, Brett
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Stephen Farrell
- [ietf-dkim] 1st 2nd 3rd Party Signatures, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Graham Murray
- Re: [ietf-dkim] party list it's whatever, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] party list it's whatever, Dave CROCKER
Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault, Stephen Farrell
|
|
|