Re: [Ietf-dkim] Adding an aim= tag to DKIM Signature Tag Specifications

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 12 May 2020 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE433A08B0 for <ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 01:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qCO_5xSJOmmr for <ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 01:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F6033A08AC for <ietf-dkim@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 01:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1589271628; bh=kG+xUDp7VqkFEF09N4TwzAhN38OlfivPmemLseXRB3g=; l=1614; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Cz0FohmHFk2Am+N8fH0tj3LV3c8j0+akrEAeiVFvi1rQY8jLYSuvLpRNspMR1fqi9 IY++qgRR+HiU/2qsl9gNfbpLO44MKtwzoN+j7j2kmlbjZl16T2tELz8awmy0AE+hj8 y7z8UXnL++xag8Ie18RnUc+zcc1uDWpr8OPH0LVyp7f1q1i9vxG/t5KXzX7C6
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC09F.000000005EBA5C4C.00006B44; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:20:28 +0200
To: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
References: <80533fb3-75a2-1d60-801d-c54d735d4094@tana.it> <7ac84ebf-e30b-6288-81c2-4a6631471d74@dcrocker.net> <5d9709d4-fd1e-9275-6a36-dfc6e7fca97b@bluepopcorn.net> <486245c5-d261-c6df-560b-f022c1ebabd5@dcrocker.net>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <551162f8-6c95-071c-3b2e-6a265b1c9783@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 10:20:28 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <486245c5-d261-c6df-560b-f022c1ebabd5@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/kns2p3HnDF9P3CFIdDpG9W9n3do>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] Adding an aim= tag to DKIM Signature Tag Specifications
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM List <ietf-dkim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 08:20:32 -0000

On Tue 12/May/2020 00:08:15 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/11/2020 1:33 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> 
>> There might also be the situation where a domain wants to delegate a key
> 
> Hence my suggestion that figuring out such details is where discussion could
> get interesting, if only because people will raise all sorts of combinatorial
> theories, independent of demonstrated need, and this is a space with lots of
> combinatorials...


Besides delegated keys, some other obvious classes I'd propose —without
venturing to forge English keywords— are as follows:

* 1st class personal messages (with or without From: restrictions),

* mailing lists (with or without From: rewrite),

* bulk messages (including transactional confirmations, complaints, ...),

* forwarded mail (after severe/loose antispam filtering).

Perhaps, the keywords should be dash-separated jumbles of terms chosen from a
predefined grab bag, to allow for combinations.


On Mon 11/May/2020 21:52:28 +0200 Damon wrote:
> ... or is this only to add a layer of (potentially ignored) definitions?


Adding the definitions can be useful, given that so many people wonder about
what would a DKIM signature certify.


On Mon 11/May/2020 20:23:12 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Indeed; why would I believe what any given domain claims in this tag?


If you trust the domain, you can as well trust their tagging.


On Mon 11/May/2020 19:30:10 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
> Oh, and then figuring out why and how they are useful to provide...


Left as an exercise to the reader?



Best
Ale
--