ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Updated implementation report

2010-10-01 15:22:02
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> 
wrote:


On 10/1/2010 9:58 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
As far as your example of intelligence, your question regarding
"importance" is incomplete. Important to whom and in what context?

Exactly.  Please re-apply this point to the current topic...


Note, I didn't say that 3rd party signing was less important generally.
What I wrote (or intended to write)  was that my belief is that 1st
party signing represents a higher value proposition to 1st party signers
than 3rd party signing represents to 3rd party signers.

Oh.  Sorry.  I didn't get that.  It's an interesting idea but I'd want to hear
it explored quite a lot, since the idea of value is pretty broad.  For 
example,
if 3rd party signatures allow an ESP to get mail delivered better and,
therefore, to stay in business, I'd be hard-pressed to call DKIM's 'value' 
lower
than for a first-party signer.

I find this exchange very interesting. I though the value of DKIM was
to provide a stable identifier. I find 1st party signing to be rather
constrained. It seems to defeat the purpose of DKIM. One might as well
resurrect DomainKeys, because it seems to have the same goals as 1st
party signers.

I'd like to propose Author Domain Signatures as signatures that the
author domain authorized. The ATPS and ALS proposals are ways of doing
that. Update ADSP to use this definition instead of "d= matches the
RFC5322:From domain".

I believe this allows everyone to get the best value of DKIM.



-- 
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA

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