Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11.txt> (DKIM Authorized Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC

"John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sun, 04 December 2011 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B794E21F8AF5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 13:28:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.769
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.769 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.430, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z-AnnIehDCSG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 13:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2708621F8AEC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 13:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 49287 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2011 21:27:58 -0000
Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2011 21:27:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 97169 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2011 21:27:58 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2011 21:27:58 -0000
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 21:27:36 -0000
Message-ID: <20111204212736.64731.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11.txt> (DKIM Authorized Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
In-Reply-To: <4EDA6C6A.7010605@dcrocker.net>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 21:28:00 -0000

>With ATPS, the requirement is to replace the d= string with the domain name from 
>the From: field.  That replacement value is then passed to the assessment module.
>
>In other words, DKIM provides it's own identifier to be used for assessment, 
>whereas ATPS dictates use of the From: field domain name for assessment.

At least one of us is confused here.

ADSP already dictates use of the From: domain.  ATPS is a modification
to ADSP.  It doesn't change anything that DKIM reports, only the rule
for deciding whether ADSP finds an Author Domain Signature.  

With or without ADSP or ATPS, DKIM returns a possibly empty list of d=
domains from valid signatures.  ADSP returns the practices value
(unknown/all/discardable) and a bit whether it found an Author Domain
signature.  Since there might be multiple DKIM signatures, even if
ADSP says it found an Author Domain signature, you can't assume a d=
domain had any relationship to the From: domain.

It's true that ATPS adds a field to DKIM signatures that doesn't
affect DKIM evaluation, but DKIM already knows how to skip over fields
it doesn't understand.

R's,
John