Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

[Damon <[e-mail]>]

On 8/4/06, Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> John L wrote:
>
> >>> I don't see the point.  That last suggestion is, to the recipient,
> >>> the equivalent of a useless "I sign some mail" since you're telling
> >>> the recipient it's OK to accept some amount of both signed and
> >>> unsigned mail.
> >>
> >
> >> For us, the amount of mail that is in the false positive quandry is
> >> really really small, though the people it would effect primiarly are
> >> people who could make it a living hell in IT. A policy which is more
> >> relaxed could, however, say that it's well worth the effort be
> >> extremely cautious about such mail -- a far higher barrier to entry
> >> than the current one-size-fits-all filters.
> >
> >
> > But you're talking about your own mail here, for which I expect that
> > you have all sorts of special treatment.
>
>
> No, I'm concerned about how others will treat it. I don't have to publish a
> policy to differentially treat that mail for myself.
>

If I read this right, I think he was saying- Do unto others...


> >
> > I'm trying to think about what I'll do when DKIM is in wide use, I get
> > mail from thousands of sources that publish SSP info.  If SSP says "I
> > sign everything" I have trouble figuring a use for it other than a
> > flat reject of unsigned messages or at least 4.9 points in a five
> > point scoring spam filter.
>
>
> That's the problem: if you do that, domains like Cisco -- or anybody else
> who uses mailing lists -- will *never* publish a "we sign everything" policy
> even though we do. I hardly think that Cisco is a outlier here, and in fact
> I expect that we'd be pretty similar to just about any medium to large
> sized business.
>
> >   I REALLY do not want an SSP that says "I sign everything, and here
> > is my estimate on a 0 to 10 scale of how much you should care."
>
> I assume that you'd complain if it boiled down to a single bit?
>
> 0: "mail from this domain may transit manglers, adjust accordingly"

So basically a 0 means: I have a published a record just so you have
to do more CPU/DNS work... because you are going to have to accept it
anyway.

> 1: "the signature should always be intact"

I think this should be assumed. If it's not, refering to the above-
Don't publish a record.


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