ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-01

2010-10-01 10:32:36

On Oct 1, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy 
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
The results in Section 4.1.2 mention "Author vs. Third-Party".  That
is more about ADSP than DKIM.

True.  It should probably come out.


It could mean that or that most implementations default to d= From:
domain. I strongly believe that is a holdover of implementations being
based on DomainKeys code which had that constraint.

+1

Also, I've talked to several people who want to use DKIM with varying d=
for the same 822.From, but can't because the signers they're using
can only sign with a single domain for any given 822.From domain,
or can only sign with the domain in the 822.From.

I don't know how widespread this misbehaviour is in DKIM signers,
but it's there.

Author vs. Third-Party:  73% of the signatures observed were author
signatures, meaning the "d=" value in the signature matched the
domain found in the From: header field.  The remainder, therefore,
were third-party signatures.

I do believe the DKIM draft warns about having d= be related to other
headers in the message. Perhaps this stat could be restated as:

d= relations:  73% of the signatures observed had a direct
correspondence to the From: header , meaning the "d=" value in the
signature matched the
domain found in the From: header field.

I might even say "was identical to" rather than "matched" - so as
to make it clear that the d= value wasn't a subdomain of the
822.From domain.

Cheers,
  Steve


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html