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

[<[e-mail]>]

Perhaps we should work backwards, what are the mechanisms for DKIM
compliant mailing lists?
If a signed message arrives and SSP says 3rd party allowed, evaluate
resign send
If evaluate fails bounce without propagation
If no sig and policy says "I sign all" bounce message
If SSP states "I only sign" forward without adding list signature or
bounce message
Myriad other possibilities
 
Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
[e-mail] 


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 12:47 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 01:41:39AM -0000, John Levine allegedly wrote:
> >> So if I set a policy of "I sign all", and a mailing list mangles
> >> it, what exactly is the mailing list receiving the bounce going to
> >> do? Blackhole it? Bounce the user off the list? Anything useful
> >> whatsoever?
> 
> >That's a matter between the "I sign all" and the list. I would say
> >that if it hurts, don't do it.
> 
> No, the sensible user will accept all the mail from the list.  With

Well maybe, but that's not the intent of my style of "I sign all".

If "I sign all" I would much rather no one accept a mail purportedly
from me that doesn't verify. Why would an "I sign all" domain want
mail accepted that can't be proved to be from them?

But them I'm missing this whole "list" issue. It seems to me to be
largely a red-herring because the size of the intersection of "I sign
all" traffic and DKIM-unaware Lists is pure speculation at this stage.


Mark.
_______________________________________________
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