On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:23:49 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Charles
Lindsey
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 4:36 AM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-03
Of the points I raised, I see that 4.3 still contains "the verifier is
requested to discard the message". It is, of course, the receiver that
actually does any discarding.
I don't agree, at least not in the architecture I have in mind. The
verifier (e.g. a mail plugin of some kind, or an internal function of an
MTA) is in a position to conduct rejections as it sits very near the
SMTP portion of a delivery. The receiver, more likely an MUA or such,
is less likely to have any direct influence.
You can define the architecture so that the discarding is done by (or
close to) the verifier, or that it is done by a separate agent (the
"receiver"). I don't mind either way, but you need to be consistent.
Currently, the wording of 5.10 suggests that you are using the second
model (the verifier leaves it alone and the receiver looks at the
verifification results in the A-R header and decides whether or not to
actually discard).
The change you have made in response to Dave is an improvement (it solves
my immediate problem), but it still leaves in doubt which of the two
models you are using.
Also, section 5.6 is still entitled "Pros and Cons of Signature
Removal",
and yet the body of that section contains no "Cons".
The first paragraph describes a "pro" of leaving them in (i.e., enabling
preservation of chain of responsibility), and the second describes a
"con" (i.e., if that's a goal, now the MLM might have to change its
behavior to do so). The next paragraph describes a "pro" of removing
them, etc.
Well the title was "Pros and Cons of ... Removal", so the first paragraph
is actually a "Con" of removal for the case where a signature might still
be valid. There is no dispute about that.
And then the second paragraph is a "Pro" for removal in the case where the
signature has been invalidated.
But what is missing is any "Con" for removal in the invalidated case (e.g.
keeping it for forensic use). Actually, a suggestion to replace the
removed signature with an X-Original-Signature would be quite sufficient
for forensic purposes. Wuld you be willing to add a suggestion to possibly
do that?
That second paragraph didn't read like a "Con" to me. In fact it seems
like a further "Pro" insofar as it recommends a "further action" which
turns out to be
--
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