[ietf-dkim] Re: dkim.org (mipassoc.org/dkim) web page updated
dotis at mail-abuse.org
Wed Nov 9 08:15:45 PST 2005
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:01:40 -0800 Douglas Otis <dotis at mail-abuse.org>
>>DKIM without SSP provides an ability for Name-based white-listing of
>>transports. Name-based white-listing/reputation would not be prone
>>to IP address exploits. Filtering programs would have a verifiable
>>source for a message to permit a significant reduction in related
>>errors. If there was abuse, there would be a verified name for
>>addressing complaints. Why would that be useless for you?
> For reputation systems, I've little interest. I'm a very small business
> and so the type of large scale systems you've described as being necessary
> for rapid/effective reputation are out of reach. Honestly Spamassassin
> does well enough for me and it's not clear segregating reputation into a
> separate set of heuristics will produce a more reliable end result. So,
> short I doubt more heuristics will make things better and I can't afford
> them anyway.
A verified signer for the message could improve the results of filtering
applications like Spamassassin. As this is your primary mechanism,
improving these applications would benefit you significantly. A general
requirement that From matches the signer will not be reduce the amount of
spam, as spammers adapt.
>>What major benefit do you expect?
> I assume DKIM is going to happen one way or another. So, SSP would
> a deterministic way for mail receivers to reject certain messages. This
> will help me defend the reputation of my domains. It will also perhaps
> provide some reduction in the risk that my domains' users will get phished
> (none of them use an MUA that only displays the pretty name).
Mandating From be tied to the signer will be highly problematic for most.
Domains seeing significant spoofing may accept this restriction. Without
restricting the From to the signer as a general practice, then your
assumptions would be wrong. For example, I would assume you want your
messages seen coming from a list-server.
Ensuring the signer is able to control abuse of the signature does not
detract from the benefits that you would enjoy, but it does allow the use
of a name-based reputation. The self-revocation mechanism that has been
suggested would also benefit those that do not use a reputation service.
These self revocations would be driven by reputation feedback. This would
be a way to share the benefits of reputation. : )
More information about the ietf-dkim