Re: [Asrg] RFC5451 Re: who gets the report, was We really don't need

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Wed, 10 February 2010 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD4B3A7325 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:06:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rzhRGaHtwFdi for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk (sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554333A7304 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:06:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:53527) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXMKD4-000MZ1-P3 for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:07:52 +0000
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:07:12 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <E61E64379EA297D31D3D92D8@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B7268F5.1040909@tana.it>
References: <20100208153359.56374.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <20100208164237.389722425C@panix5.panix.com> <4B704FFC.8040306@tana.it> <4B7059C9.2060102@nortel.com> <BB012BD379D7B046ABE1472D8093C61C01C3C452A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4B7070AF.2050304@nortel.com> <2E34570FC4E61E0A7E857EBF@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <4B717820.9090506@tana.it> <BB012BD379D7B046ABE1472D8093C61C01C3C454E2@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4B7268F5.1040909@tana.it>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01b2Q1VtjFo7uw0Ym424ri2ajJ1dxWsNKK5M8=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] RFC5451 Re: who gets the report, was We really don't need
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:06:07 -0000

--On 10 February 2010 09:06:13 +0100 Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> 
wrote:

> On 09/Feb/10 23:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>>  Could the MDA add a DKIM signature for the authentication results
>>>>  header?
>>>
>>>  Yes, it could. However, removal of the field on forwarding would then
>>>  break the signature.
>>
>> True, but you don't have to do that.
>
> But retention is only allowed for trusted internal MTAs.

Right, but the MDA is, by definition (a) not forwarding (it's putting a 
message into a mailstore) and (b) a trusted internal MTA. Isn't it?

I guess there's an issue if the user decides to forward the message.

Since the signature only covers the abuse field, it's not unreasonable to 
remove the dkim signature when removing the authentication results field.


-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/