Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:05 AM, John L wrote:

> a) "SIGN ALL MAIL" and "DO NOT USE ANY SERVICES KNOWN TO DAMAGE  
> THEIR SIGNATURES"
>
> b) "SIGN ALL MAIL"
>
> I want to put "ALL MAIL HAS TOM SWIFTIES" in my SSP.
>
> Assuming you agree that's ridiculous, what's the practical  
> difference to people using SSP between that and b) above?

The From email-address DKIM policy represents a partial or complete  
list of signing domain (valid sources).  Whether partial or complete,  
this list might allow recipients to verify that 90% of the From  
domains have a valid association with the signing domain.  This  
leaves a remaining 10% that must be treated according to the  
reputation of the smtp client or a non-designated signing domain.   
However, a client DKIM policy transaction offers a means to greatly  
improve the odds of blocking abuse with DKIM.

Require that all DKIM client use a "_dkim.<host-name>" that can be  
verified with a simple Address record lookup.  This would enable a  
DKIM client policy.  The DKIM client policy can assert "ONLY SEND  
SIGNED DKIM MESSAGES."  A client that does not authenticate or does  
not sign with DKIM can then be blocked.

DKIM client policy will prevent a significantly greater number of  
abusive messages without creating delivery issues for valid  
messages.  For DKIM to succeed, it must not cause delivery problems  
or support issues.

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