On May 25, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

Because DKIM has not resolved the issue of replay abuse, DKIM is indirectly promoting a dangerous means to associate domains. The DKIM WG should reconsider their strategy.

Doug, will you (briefly) say what the replay scenario you're looking to address is? Thanks.

A DKIM signed message can be replayed from other SMTP clients. This is a desirable feature, but permits abuse when receivers base message acceptance upon (the reputation of) the DKIM domain.

Replay abuse has been defined, and should be understood. The concern is for those who will be affected by replay abuse mitigation strategies.

Mitigation would condition DKIM domain consideration to those messages where:

 A) the SMTP RCPT TO is within the signed portion of the message,

 B) or when the SMTP client is within the DKIM domain.

For a typical bulk sender, these conditions are not problematic. However, these conditions are problematic for many valid use scenarios. These mitigation conditions have a potential to greatly lessen email delivery integrity. This problem grows as DKIM domains become a greater component of acceptance. The DKIM WG should consider how SSP records might safely extend use scenarios where a valid DKIM signature can remain a basis for acceptance.

Ideally, the extension information would be contained directly within the message to extend the mitigation A strategy. Unfortunately BCC seems to preclude such direct methods, but there might be a means that combines some existing SMTP parameter with a cryptographic hash function. Another method would be to extend the mitigation B strategy by indicating which SMTP clients are considered trustworthy. A mitigation B strategy is not safely fulfilled by SPF, so it is imperative that a safe means be provided when only the mitigation B strategy remains available.

-Doug


"Good ideas and innovations must be driven into existence by courageous patience." Hyman Rickover

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

Reply via email to