On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:33 PM, Tony Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Absolutely. This really has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the > likelihood of a message making it to the mailbox. It has to do with being > able to make additional positive value judgements about messages that *have* > made it to your inbox. People keep incorrectly conflating the making of > positive statements about a message with trying to keep messages from the > inbox; such thinking is what leads to such erroneous documents as > "dkim-is-harmful". > > DKIM shines with telling you positive verifiable statements about an email > message and its attributes. It's the messages that pass those positive > verifications that I'm interested in for such additional tests.
Dear Tony, What do you find to be in error in draft-otis-dkim-harmful? The latest version attempts to more clearly explain this concern. Trust in a DKIM signature is being used as a basis for acceptance as described in section 5.4 in [RFC5863]. Since neither SMTP nor DKIM check for invalid prefixed header fields, TBTB domains offer a simple means for malefactors to have their deceptive messages delivered to their victim's inbox. This problem is real. Regards, Douglas Otis
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
