On Mar 12, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Hector Santos wrote:

I tend to side with the high probability that blindly signing MAIL in a DKIM-BASE only manner [...], will not only open the door for DOMAIN reputation damage, but make DKIM as useless as [...] DOMAINKEYS [...].

Where DKIM base concluded speaks well of DomainKeys. Unless SSP provides a means to mitigate replay abuse, then one is advised to not base acceptance solely upon finding a valid signature from a reputable domain. DKIM still prevents false positive spoofing detections and allows messages to obtain greater trust when the assured email-address is annotated. Annotation is the _only_ safe and extensible solution for DKIM email, otherwise too many things break.

By reputation, are you suggesting recipients will not be assured when "seeing" an email-address, unless all without a valid signature are expunged through the application of SSP? Security should not be based upon the visual acuity of the recipient. What happens when UTF-8 is used, or multiple versions of an email-address are applied, or the From header contains more than one representation, or uses more than one character-repertoire? What happens when the Sender header is assured instead of the From header? Basing security upon what someone might see is not a safe solution. Would there be a recommendation that no email-address be displayed using less than half the points of the recipient's age? : )

When reputation means the signature can be used as a basis for acceptance, then your scheme also fails to offer reputation protections. SSP could be used to authorize transmitters for this purpose. It could be used to authorize the sending of DSNs as well. There are many improvements SSP could provide. Providing guidance on which messages with invalid signatures should be expunged is perhaps the most problematic goal to pursue which then only offers questionable security.

-Doug





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

Reply via email to