IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Damon <deepvoice@gmail.com> Fri, 04 August 2006 23:47 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G99OI-0002a8-Pu for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:47:42 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G99OH-0001OD-Db for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:47:42 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k74NkcKS009157; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:46:38 -0700
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k74NkN6q008989 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:46:23 -0700
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g2so600803nfe for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=V0rf4UX3ypgk4vkq6yY45eSebH5JiBhSMjPAKgqndgdLy/ZjtNg+pHU+9I7LXZkY0DcR6XPZFgeOMWK7QHft+lfYEfNN55p1AggmSIcEFbr450Jo1tsoltnztVeA25C9IALKMej0wOo0g12qhj6CpqYKu/169K+Fmsy27M0vII8=
Received: by 10.78.203.15 with SMTP id a15mr1746031hug; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.78.149.6 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <62146370608041645vb82e2faid76479eadfee41c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:45:57 -0400
From: Damon <deepvoice@gmail.com>
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
In-Reply-To: <62146370608041634t38baf99eu351e0c7373d811d4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060804173538.54245.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <44D3C0BB.9000405@mtcc.com> <20060804174955.N15734@simone.iecc.com> <44D3C8DB.4070101@mtcc.com> <20060804184321.L23892@simone.iecc.com> <20060804231526.71834.qmail@snake.corp.yahoo.com> <62146370608041634t38baf99eu351e0c7373d811d4@mail.gmail.com>
X-Songbird: Clean, Clean
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird-From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2

On 8/4/06, Damon <deepvoice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/4/06, Mark Delany <MarkD+dkim@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 06:44:34PM -0400, John L allegedly wrote:
> > > >I cannot see how SSP can do anything but make false positives more
> > > >likely. The real question is whether the gain in eliminating harmful
> > > >mail is worth the occassional false positive.
> >
> > I guess I'm a little confused about the false policy concern.
> >
> > If a signer wants to take that risk, isn't that for them to decide?
>
> Yes but.. I don't think that everyone is going to be aware of the risk
> or ignore it thinking it can't happen to them. I still haven't stopped
> smoking even though the Surgeon General puts all that scary warning
> stuff on my smokes. It can't happen to me...
>

I want to add a little more...

It would also be ok if there was an alternative that was useful... and
will just refer to my previous posts as to why I thing "I SIGN SOME"'s
value is not worth the expense.

So without adding flags or some doable mechanism for how to verify the
DK even if it's munged.. I can't see the value in SSP as a whole.
And you know me!... I really would like to see it work. I am not
trying to torpedo it for some ulterior motive.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email