What Murray says makes sense. I don’t see the value of going forward with this
approach given the negative impacts involved.
Mike
From: ietf-dkim [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:57 PM
To: Michael Storz
Cc: Ietf Dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to
draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Michael Storz
<Michael(_dot_)Storz(_at_)lrz(_dot_)de<mailto:Michael(_dot_)Storz(_at_)lrz(_dot_)de>>
wrote:
Thanks, I see. That means the recipient is bound to the message and an attacker
cannot delete or change the new tags. Great solution, I like it, though I do
not like the consequences when this extension will go into production.
You may not need to worry about that. We've reached a point where I think we
can legitimately say, "We took a serious look, and this is the best we could
come up with. It has some pretty ugly side effects. Are you sure you can't
just stop signing spam?" And absent a compelling answer to that question,
there's no need to roll this out even as an experiment.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html