IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<Bill.Oxley@cox.com> Sat, 05 August 2006 02:18 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G9Bjp-0003WL-3L for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:18:05 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G9Bjn-0005MF-Mm for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:18:05 -0400
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k752D1Dm024824; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:13:02 -0700
Received: from cox.com (post5.cox.com [24.248.74.41]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k752CoZH024801 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:12:51 -0700
Received: from ([192.168.74.254]) by post5.cox.com with ESMTP id KP-GYX41.151594791; Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:12:20 -0400
Received: from CATL0MS21.CORP.COX.COM ([10.64.210.21]) by catl0ms22.CORP.COX.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:12:20 -0400
Received: from CATL0MS02.corp.cox.com ([10.62.210.88]) by CATL0MS21.CORP.COX.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:12:19 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:12:19 -0400
Message-ID: <BB621D48443A854A89D86528F915864C0215F770@CATL0MS02.corp.cox.com>
In-Reply-To: <62146370608041901r32279846n1ec2afac1c79d3b2@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom
Thread-Index: Aca4NFWgKa53PC4kRmay/DFgPd49kgAAC+fQ
From: Bill.Oxley@cox.com
To: deepvoice@gmail.com, dotis@mail-abuse.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2006 02:12:19.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[94BA8620:01C6B834]
X-Songbird: Clean, Clean
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sb7.songbird.com id k752CoZH024801
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird-From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe

Not before Doug defines client a little more clearly :-)

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
bill.oxley@cox.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Damon
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 10:01 PM
To: Douglas Otis
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

I really like William and Douglas's ideas...
Is there anyone who doesn't?


Damon

On 8/4/06, Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Damon wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/06, Arvel Hathcock <arvel.hathcock@altn.com> wrote:
> >> > Yes but.. I don't think that everyone is going to be aware of
> >> the risk > or ignore it thinking it can't happen to them.
> >>
> >> Quite the contrary really, I'd think.  And anyway, are we to
> >> remove from our work even useful things on the basis that there
> >> are some who might not understand it?  Surely not.  We should just
> >> do our best to document what we can to help them.
> >
> > Nothing contrary about it... I wish I had a nickle for everyone
> > that set their SPF records with a ~all. I also think that this
> > would be of diminishing returns. They may set it up this way.. but
> > the first problem (or second) they have, it will get turned off.
> > Then what is their alternative? I don't dislike the idea and if it
> > were released this way... at least I could say I told you so. I am
> > just hoping we can come up with a solution that will have a safety
> > or 'Plan B' attached.
>
> This Plan B will stop more abuse than you can imagine:
>
> Require that all DKIM clients use a "_dkim.<host-name>" that can be
> verified with a simple Address record lookup.  Define a DKIM client
> policy that can assert "ONLY SEND SIGNED DKIM MESSAGES."  A client
> that does not authenticate or does not sign with DKIM can then be
> blocked.
>
> -Doug
>
_______________________________________________
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email