Re: [ietf-dkim] Fwd: SendGrid, GetResponse and Hubspot being used over DKIM "patent"

["Mark Delany" <[e-mail]>]

On 05Dec17, Steve Atkins allegedly wrote:
> 
> I thought this might be of interest to DKIM implementers.

> The Asserted Patents share a common specification.

Did the claimants vacuum up the IP of the now defunct Goodmail? Reads
somewhat similar to what they were once trying to sell. Particularly
the "contractual" obligations of the senders.

From what I can glean, the plan is to digitally sign the email along
the lines of S/MIME (PKI and CAs are referred to extensively and
exclusively) and the sender include a "pledge" about the contents such
as "no more than 5 recipients will get this email". Recipients can act
on the pledge in the knowledge that senders apparently won't lie in
their pledge. Or if they do lie something will happen to them -
exactly what or how is not specified.

How the pledge is validated across the whole of Internet email is
undefined as is what to do to the sender if the pledge is known to be
a lie.

There are no references to DNS, no reference to how they determine
identical mail (canonicalization), no reference to S/MIME or DKIM in
any of their filings.

I guess the "pledge" on the part of the sender is vaguely novel but
there is no equivalent in DKIM as far as I recall. Maybe the vendors
you refer to have features that emulates pledges when sending email?

For moral equivalence, the Date: header is a pledge as to when the
email was composed/sent and Content-Type: is a pledge as to how the
MIME part has been encoded so the novelty is not even that there are
pledges in the email, just the nature of the pledge.

To me they seem to have invented a new mail header.


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