[ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...

[Douglas Otis]

On Jul 13, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:

> I'm saying that
>
> 	if there are Resent-* headers representing identity, they should
> 	be signed
>
> We should be agnostic to the debate. If the MUA uses them, support  
> them.
> If the MUA does NOT use them, we don't.

Agreed.  It is still to be seen what will be practical.  Message  
annotation proactively protecting recipients without suffering a  
discovery process climbing label trees looking for a possible policy  
confirmation that may, in the end say little, if anything, about what  
mail is acceptable.  Spammers can adopt policy record requirements  
and thus this requirement will offer little in the way of protection  
from abusive email, especially when email-address recognition is not  
assumed.  DKIM without some type of annotation is already prone to  
Microsoft X-Message headers, as well as notations related to the  
Sender header.  That involves just one of hundreds of MUAs.  Once MUA  
developers incorporate information confirmed by DKIM sans policy,  
substantial protections can be achieved by comparing signing domains  
against information collected in Address Books, or correspondence lists.

-Doug