Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy

[Damon <[e-mail]>]

I believe that without policy records (we can discuss the particulars
later), the rest is useless.

Regards,
Damon Sauer

On 8/5/06, william(at)elan.net <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, John L wrote:
>
> >> In no way does accreditation=DKIM
>
> But policy records are in a way. Lets look at it in general -
> policy record is just a statement of what sender believes to
> be true about their email system setup and how receiver can
> use the email..
>
> Accreditation is basically the same thing but the difference
> is that its not sender directly saying it but that sender asked
> (paid) some other party to provide this information to the
> public (and depending on how good accreditation service is
> they might go through some sort of checks to verify its true;
> in the end its still that accreditation service has been paid
> by the sender and is thus not true neutral party no matter
> what they say). Another slight difference is that accreditation
> focuses more on the "use of the email" rather then email system
> setup. Reputation is actually highly similar too but in that
> case it only answers about "use of the email" from perspective
> of 3rd party that has [hopefully] nothing to do with the sender.
>
> We could in fact have a system/protocol that accommodates all of
> these at once. The difference would be that for "policy record"
> the answer would be found directly at the service run by the
> sender (or whoever appears to be the sender in case you need
> to check on that). In the case of accreditation you'd ask some
> 3rd party chosen by the sender where as with reputation you'd
> ask 3rd party chosen by the receiver. The questions asked could
> all actually be the same and could even be if that party always
> sends signed email.
>
> As far as example given by John [FDIC and banks], I think its
> special corner-case because banks members of FDIC so what
> FDIC does is answer a question if they are member or not
> and there is no doubt that FDIC is only place to reliably
> find this out. However if a bank were to have paid some
> other 3rd party to say this bank belongs to FDIC, I'd not
> believe it much more then if bank itself said that directly
> (in fact lawyers would say it should be believed less).
>
> --
> William Leibzon
> Elan Networks
> [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> 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