ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Doublefrom, ADSP and mailing lists in perspective,

2011-07-28 11:51:00

As long as the deployment of the pure DKIM protocol continues to 
openly allows for blind middle-ware resigners and destruction of 
author domain signatures to exist without any sort of protocol 
guidelines to offer controls, its hard to see any kind of policy 
concept having a chance to work - author domain as well as the 
inherent abstract 3rd party signer trust policy in DKIM.   It really 
doesn't matter what we call it or who we wish to anchor a policy on, 
if the protocol allows for middle ware to ignore it and still be 
legit, then there is no worth in original signatures, including the 
previous resigner.  At this point, the only real signer one can focus 
on is the last signer.

I've been working on an idea to have our POP3 server SIGN all mail 
that is picked up! Why? because mail is not always RFC5321 (SMTP) 
based. Mail can be created online in the backend format. There is no 
RFC5322 format expectation at this point. Its only during an export or 
gateway does RFC5322 come into play and if the message is export to 
SMTP to send out, then we sign it.  But there are users who will POP 
in to get their mail and that mail is unsigned. So we are looking at 
signing local mail pickups.
-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

Michael Deutschmann wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Douglas Otis wrote:
Your fix will not control phishing or spoofing abuse and would expose
these domains to open-ended sources.

ADSP reforms along my lines would not create any additional exposure,
because they are only intended for senderside deployment by sites that
are currently entirely naked.

The availability of weak ADSP declarations would actually increase the
protection afforded by "dkim=discardable", because then fewer domains
would go without ADSP, and more MX administrators would be incentivized to
implement and arm it.

Remember, for an MX admin the goal is not to "control phishing".  That's
just a side benefit of their true goal, to "control forgeries".  When
forgery can be reliably detected, it becomes a low-false-positive noise
filter, something every MX admin loves.

---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html






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