[ietf-dkim] Re: Purpose and sequencefor
DKIM specificationand deployment
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Aug 30 13:01:02 PDT 2005
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> What we should attempt to achieve in the specification is a
> method of describing the protocol from a neutral point of
> view that is independent of the perspective of any given
Let's say that the perspective of an "ignorant" receiver is
more important than details at the side of the sender.
> We should develop and articulate a description of the
> protocol that confuses as few people as possible. That
> requires a global view and not a post modern relativistic
> approach that requires the reader to engage in hermeneutic
> exegeis of the document.
Taking this statement as an example: I'm "sure" that it's
from you, it's your style. I don't need blinking green lights
in my MUA to "know" this. I'm interested to kill some mails
automatically (=> ignorant receiver) without manual checking,
where it's "clear" that somebody abused (spoofed) your From.
In other words, SOFTPASS / PASS / HARDPASS / op=auth (using
SPF-terminology) are very interesting, but essentially from
my POV as receiver I trust that you will handle it if another
user @verisign forges pbaker@
I want to kill all pbaker at verisign where it's 100% clear that
it wasn't you or somebody else @verisign. Modulo screw ups on
your or my side, Please tell me where that misses essential
points in the design of DKIM.
More information about the ietf-dkim