Re: How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead

Barry Leiba <> Thu, 03 October 2013 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADADE21F969F for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LexacMT2KrYf for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED2B21F92CD for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id eh20so2461907lab.18 for <>; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hn0+AlcLwUyA9d6k/NX5zYSqpV/n4NWcch8oVLYSZ8M=; b=p0ZbSQAQx+gQM5DgwooN6aDrca8hob1jJloF5uCwEdp55O+Jny2ShB/NsQxRGkNRJS dZYUz1fY7C3aRFyLYMykp1RK1zWJRzGsxzoQZKmEoNamiAK7lq4zTiTrNNqMbh4UJ3cn 2hQ1FZKeVdefr2h7HODbukvQHnuDdey3J7mh5JbuBvXfvHjPIVjZC5zfAlX5bKRa4XOW bniWVJDHmHk0R2VUvbptJOijLiwzLQ4MKiItGZd3rBKatHCHvOsEQh9hmSaKA+9iwxwm U9Fv87XQD0fDvGu5mLGJ1YIUi78bHpyScTPKJgMyW6t5QMAjyJHXUWMDmVPHxutqSdoa h+4Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id eg2mr3243801lbb.36.1380832668388; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:37:48 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: w6Sz6qPGys2S1FOZT7V5hpSb2XI
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: How to protect DKIM signatures: Moving ADSP to Historic, supporting DMARC instead
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Hector Santos <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 20:52:52 -0000

To both Doug and Hector, and others who want to drift in this direction:

As I've said before, the question of moving ADSP to Historic is one
we're taking on its own, and is not connected to anything we do or
don't do with DMARC.  Bringing DMARC into the discussion is a
distraction, and, worse, makes it look like there's a tie-in.  There
is not.

So, please, let's not discuss DMARC as part of the "ADSP to Historic"
conversation.  The issue is purely one of whether ADSP can be shown to
have enough value to maintain it as a Proposed Standard, whether we're
not getting enough value from it, and whether there's harm resulting
from our recommending its use and seeing it poorly used.

Please, everyone: discussions of DMARC in relation to this topic are
out of scope.

Barry, Applications AD