Re: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>> 3.  Scope and scale of query traffic
>>>
>>> SSP originally was constrained to apply only to unsigned mail.  The
>>> current specification applies to unsigned messages *and* signed
>>> messages
>>> where the DKIM i= domain name does not match the rfc2822.From
>>> <addr-spec>
>>>  domain.  This is a considerable change in the nature -- and
>>> potentially
>>> a considerable change in the amount of query traffic -- that SSP
>>> causes.
>>
>> This has not changed in years. Maybe you've just become aware of it. And
>> the problem here remains with unsigned traffic. Third party
>> signatures are
>> very rare beasts.
>
> The requirement to have i= match From domain was added between the -02
> and -03 versions, sometime during Fall 06 and Winter 07.
>
> On reviewing the working group archive, I have not succeeded in
> finding any discussion either of changing the SSP paradigm to apply to
> signed message or of the problematic selection of the rfc2822.From
> field, rather than rfc2822.Sender field domain.
>
> I recall making a point a number of times in the working group,
> verifying that the group agreed that SSP applied (only) to unsigned
> messages.


>From draft-allman-dkim-ssp-00.txt, dated July 9, 2005, section 1
paragraph 3:

   In the absence of a valid DKIM signature on behalf of the "From"
   address [RFC2822], the verifier of a message MUST determine whether
   messages from a particular sender are expected to be signed, and what
   signatures are acceptable.

-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html