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

[<[e-mail]>]

All,
Maybe I am confused on how email works.
Sending,
A. I want to send a message. My MTA looks up the MX record of the
receiving party and initiates a bind and a conversation on port 25 with
the receiver's MTA. As part of that conversation headers are exchanged
one of which is DKIM. I then pass the message itself. The receiving MTA
gives me a gooday then trundles off to do the magic receiving stuff.

B. My MTA must relay to another MTA because I am on a DHCP based static
IP
I initiate the conversation above with my relayer who then repeats the
process with the MTA on the other end of the MX record. If my agreement
with my relaying MTA is to sign on my behalf I have a 3rd party
signature. Plus perhaps my own.

C. Using the B example above my relayer thinks he is talking to the MTA
of the receiver because of the MX record but is really talking to a 3rd
party front end who runs spam filters for the real users (MXLogic comes
to mind) they say thank you very much and may well sign again for the
MTA and MUA of the real recipient behind them.

Now I haven't addressed lists yet. Am I missing any pieces?

 

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 Michael Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:35 PM
To: John L
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom

John L wrote:

>> I think a more fundamental question is who the consumers of SSP 
>> information
>> are.  I think that everybody agrees that DKIM receivers are an
important
>> constituent, but are they the only ones? It doesn't seem very hard to

>> envision other consumers.
>
>
> Usage scenarios would be very helpful.  As Dave noted, if people can 
> throw stuff into a protocol because it might be useful for something 
> nobody actually plans to do, you end up with terminal bloat.

Please don't shoot the messanger: I'm just asking. It's a fairly common 
occurrance
that a successful protocol will have many more uses/consumers than was 
originally envisioned.
Especially in the case of spam, it's not very clear what the mutations 
will be so it's
worth questioning, IMO.

          Mike
_______________________________________________
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